7 
ela 


avrg es Seana 
gee eS See Se 


SS 
ee ned eee: 




















THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Other Books By DR. KEYSER 


PI aan eC EUUnrcnDN tne USS 


MaAwn’s First DISOBEDIENCE 


CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH 

A SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE 
A SysTEM OF GENERAL ETHICS 
THE RATIONAL TEST 








Whence Came the Uaineier —— 


Whence Came Life and Species? 
W hence Came Man? 


A FRANK DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINES 
OF CREATION AND EVOLUTION 


if BY 
¥/ 
LEANDER S. KEYSER, A.M., D.D. 


PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN HAMMA DIVINITY SCHOOL, WITTEN- 
BERG COLLEGE, SPRINGFIELD, OHIO 


jew Bork 
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
1926 


All rights reserved 


CopyRIGHT, 1926, 
Py THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 





Set up and printed. 
Published February, 1926. 


Printed in the United States of America by 
J. J. LITTLE AND IVES COMPANY, NEW YORK 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


CONSIDERABLE portions of the contents of this volume 
originally appeared in various periodicals, to the editors 
of which the author hereby makes grateful acknowledg- 
ment for the privilege of reprinting the same. The said 
contributions have been much revised, most of them 
entirely rewritten, and many of them blended together 
in such a way as to make it impossible to give credit in 
every case to the journals which used the original 
material. The author takes pleasure, however, in men- 
tioning the following publications in this general way: 
Bibliotheca Sacra, St. Louis, Mo.; The Sunday School 
Times, Philadelphia, Pa.; The Bible Champion, Reading, 
Pa.; The Moody Bible Institute Monthly, Chicago, IIl.; 
The King’s Business, Los Angeles, Cal.; The Presby- 
terian, Philadelphia, Pa. 

While these periodicals are of a religious character, 
their editors are scholars who are deeply interested in the 
scientific and philosophical phases of the questions here 
_ discussed, as well as in their theological implications and 

importance. All these editors believe, with the author, 
that no conflict exists between true evangelical Chris- 
tianity and the real, empirical results of scientific 
investigation. 

It is only fair to add that much new matter—matter 
that has never previously appeared in print—is included 
in this work. 


Te S. K, 
Wittenberg College, 
Springfield, Ohio. 


t HR 


Pika: 


; j Hee 





CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 


I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS . 


+ 
II]. WuHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? . 


The Quest for an Adequate Explanation . 
The Definite Teaching of the Bible . 
The Eternal Existence of God . 

The Materialistic World-View . 

Matter Not Eternal 3 

The Theory of a Finite God . Pa 
Can Evolution Explain the Universe? ; 
God the Unifier . Shag 

The Believer’s Security 


III. THe Worip CreaTep Goop AND Happy . 
A New Viewpoint for Geology. . 
The Pristine Status of the World . 
Man’s Primitive Habitat .. : 
The Blight that Fell on Man and Nature , 
How the Bible Explains the Lapse . 
How the Bible and Geology Agree . 


IV. THe OrIcIn oF LIFE AND SPECIES 
The Limits of Physical Science . 
Whither Shall we Turn for Light? . 
The Doctrines of Creation and Redemption . 
Creation or Evolution . EN he 


V. Tue Rest Dawn Man ‘ 
Who was He? The Great Iahereoenite : 
Is the Biblical Narrative Historical and 
Scientific? : AHP Bae 
Some Light from Biblical “Exegesis ‘ 
Vii 


PAGE 


40 


68 


Vill 


CHAPTER 


VI. 


CONTENTS 


The Creation of Man’s Soul . 

The Fashioning of Man’s Body . 

Was it a Mechanical Process? . 

Did it Show Wisdom and Skill? . 

The Conjunction of Soul and Body . 

Man a Unique and Distinct Genus . 

The Advent of Woman. . 

The Biblical Account Reasonable and Up- 
lifting . 

Parents Exist Before Children . : 


THE DIvINE IMAGE IN MAN 


An Inspiring Doctrine . 

In what the Divine Image Consists 

Thinking on the Higher Levels . 

The Proper Appraisal of Man . 

Man’s Value and the Vast Universe . 

Man’s Qualitative Importance. 

Man a Sinner—Unworthy, but not Worthless 
Why God Created so Vast a Universe . 


VII. Tue Dawn MAN oF EVOLUTION 


VIII. 


Was He a Real or an Imaginary Being? . 
Man’s Origin a Religious Question . 

The Scientific Phase of the Problem . 

Were Man’s Ancestors Tree Folk? . 

The Meager Fossil Remains . ‘ 

The Ape’s Failure to Make Progress . 

The Dawn Man of Piltdown . 

Concerning the Status of the Humanoid People 
Some Unwarranted Inferences from Fossils . 


Tur REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 


Is it Clear and Logical? . ‘ 
The Present Uprising Against Evolution f 
Dubiety Regarding the Causes of Evolution . 
The Question of Science and Evolution . 
No Danger of Religious Persecution . 

What About Legislation and Evolution? . 


CHAPTER 


CONTENTS 


Who Makes Infidels of Young People? . 
Who is Competent to Form a Judgment? . 
Fixity and Pliancy of Type . i : 
The Genealogical Tree of the T ransformists ; 
Past and Present Status of Apes and Monkeys 
Is the Recapitulation Theory a Valid Proof? 
Man’s Humble Conception and Birth . 

Man’s Body Formed from Clean Soil . 
Christianity and the “Religion of Evolution” 


IX. PERTINENT PoINtTs ON EVOLUTION 


“ Some Fatal Admissions of the Evolutionists . 


What the Birds Teach About Evolution . 
Whence Came the Vital Germ? . 

Some More Salient Points . 

How to Define a Species . 

Still Another Non Sequitur 

The Evolution of the Horse . 

The Tedium of Evolution . 

The Overdone Vestige Theory . ; 
The Doleful Outlook of Some Evolutionists ; 


X. Tue CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS 


XI. 


The Ptolemaic and Copernican Views . 
Physiology, Biology, Physics, and aera 
The Nebular Hypothesis . , 

Atoms, Ether, and Darwinism . 

Why Man Made Progress and Apes Did Not . 
Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics . 
Differences Regarding Miracles 


‘Is Man Bestial or Not? . 


Man’s Original Habitat . ; 

Is There a Struggle for Existence? 
Where Are Man’s Real Ancestors? . 
Evolution and Deterioration . 


HoMOLOGIES AND OTHER DATA 


» How Men and Monkeys Differ . 
’ How a Brain Was Evolved . 


ix 
PAGE 
142 
143 
146 
148 
153 
155 
157 
158 
161 


163 


163 
171 
173 
175 
177 
182 
185 
192 
194 
196 


201 


201 
202 
202 
203 
205 
207 
207 
208 
209 
210 
at 
213 


217 


217 
222 


x CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 
More Notes on Transformism . 
How to Prove Transformism . 


XII. A Critique on A RECENT Work ON Evo- 
LUTION . . Maiob pares 
The Right to Pass Tudeeuaete 
Man’s Animal Lineage. . , 
Conjectural Aspects of the Theory 4 
The Inadequacy of the Data as Evidence . 
And what About Precipitin Blood Tests? . 
Concluding Reflections . 


BIBLIOGRAPHY . 
ADDENDUM . 


INDEX 


PAGE 
225 
228 


231 
231 


237 
241 


247 
250 
255 
257 
259 


261 


THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 





THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


CHAPTER I 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 


This book deals with the vital problems of creation 
and evolution. It is the outgrowth of earnest conviction. 
The subjects here discussed have a threefold interest 
and importance: 1. Scientific; 2. Philosophical; 3. Reli- 
gious. The author believes that true science makes for 
human welfare; that a true world-view (philosophy) gives 
vision, depth and breadth to human life; and that religion 
affords a true basis for individual and social ethics and a 
solid and needed assurance of future destiny for man and 
the universe. All of these elements must be combined 
and correlated in order to produce the best, fullest and 
happiest life here on the earth. 

The author cherishes a kindly feeling toward those who 
differ from him. He is conscious of no rancor in his 
soul. He does not believe in ridicule and epithets. He 
has tried to avoid the satirical temper in this volume. 
Here and there a vigorous expression may occur, but he 
hopes his readers will attribute it to earnestness of con- 
viction, not to a scornful or angry spirit. 

He calls no one ignorant. On the other hand, he 
frankly recognizes the intellectual acumen and academic 
achievements of many thinkers who hold views directly 

13 


14 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


opposed to his own. According to his way of thinking, it 
is ungracious to accuse an opponent of ignorance. It 
also seems to betray or connote a boastful spirit on the 
part of the accuser. Besides, human knowledge is only 
a relative achievement. No.man knows everything, nor 
even a considerable fraction of everything. What men 
know is comparatively little; what they do not know is a 
vast deal. And this is especially true when they try to 
penetrate into the inner nature and constitution of things. 
When the author was only a lad, this adage was given to 
him by one of his teachers: ‘The truly educated man 
never brags about his attainments, because he knows 
enough to know that he doesn’t know much.” 

Careful attention is called to the following observations. 
In this work the terms “creation” and “evolution” are 
used in their technical, scientific and restricted sense, 
which, we hold, is the only correct sense in which to 
employ them. The word “creation” here means the 
bringing into existence of an entity or a principle or a 
force that had no prior existence. It is technically known 
as creatio ex nihilo. We hold that the expression, “crea- 
tive evolution,” is a contradiction of terms and of thought. 
An entity must exist before it can be developed. If it 
does not exist, it cannot be developed from nonexistence 
into existence. This thought is dealt with more fully 
further on. Thus the reader, as he proceeds, should con- 
stantly bear in mind the technical sense in which the 
term “creation” is here employed. 

The same caution must be given regarding the term 
“evolution.” It is used here, not in the elastic sense, 
but in the strictly scientific sense—the sense in which it is 
employed by the truly scientific exponents of the theory. 
Some persons, however, even among the scientists, con- 
fuse the issue by using the phrase, “creation by evolu- 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 15 


tion.” Even Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn commits, as we 
think, this grave error... So does Professor J. Arthur 
Thompson in a very recent voulme.? 

But evolution and creation cannot thus be merged and 
identified. ‘They connote distinct conceptions and proc- 
esses. Evolution does not mean and cannot mean the 
creation of an entity or principle ex nihilo. It means 
only the progressive unfolding of something that already 
exists and that has been endowed by its Creator with 
certain inherent potentialities that enable it to develop. 
Surely something cannot be evolved out of nothing. But, 
given a personal God, all-wise and all-powerful, it is 
comparatively easy to find intelligibility in the concep- 
tion of the creation of something that had no previous 
existence. 

The advocates of “creation by evolution” should be re- 
quired to say just what they mean by “creation.” If 
they mean the development of a so-called new species of 
organism from a lower form by means of resident forces, 
they are using the terms “evolution” and “creation” syn- 
onymously, and thus would be guilty of the tautological 
phrase, “evolution by evolution.” No; the unfolding of 
an entity, originally endowed with developing power, as it 
must have been, is not the same as creation. 

The term “evolution” is, however, sometimes used 
still more loosely, causing not a little confusion. Too 
many people use it to denote any kind of progress, no 
matter how it is brought about. But that, too, we hold 
to be inaccurate. For example, orderly progress may 
take place by creation as well as by development; for, 
if God first created the primordial material of the uni- 
verse, and then later, at definite periods, created the vari- 
ous kinds of organisms, and lastly created man’s soul 


*The Earth Speaks to Bryan. * Science and Religion, p. 177. 


16 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


in the divine image, that would be progress by successive 
stages or acts of creation. And it would be orderly prog- 
ress. But it certainly would not be evolution, according 
to the scientific use of the term. 

Another common error is to refer to the growth of a 
tree from a seed or of a chick from an egg as a case of 
evolution. But that is not at all what is meant by the 
theory of evolution, which carries the idea of the trans- 
formism of species, the higher from the lower. To avoid 
logomachies, therefore, it is better in the cases just cited 
to use the terms “growth” or ‘‘development.” 

We cannot agree with our friend, Dr. Louis Matthews 
Sweet, who in his recent book devotes a chapter to a dis- 
cussion of the variant, elastic and confusing ideas that 
prevail concerning the definition of evolution.* Ii no- 
body knows what it is, it surely cannot be a good scien- 
tific term. A term that has no stabilized meaning, one 
with a significance that flits about uncertainly like an 
ignis fatuus, cannot be of real use in science. We believe 
that the term “evolution” has come to have a definite 
meaning in these days—at all events, by those who em- 
ploy it intelligently. In his next chapter Dr. Sweet gives 
some true definitions, two of which we shall take the 
liberty to quote.* 

Here is a definition of evolution by Professor Albert G. 
Keller of Yale University: ‘The essence of evolution is 
the development of form out of form, in a connected se- 
ries, with a survival of the fitter forms in adjustment to 
environment.” Of course, the restrictive phrase, “in ad- 
justment to environment,” may be questioned, but the rest 
of the sentence tells us just what the theory of evolu- 
tion is. 

Next we quote Professor Vines’ definition in the 

*To Christ through Evolution, Chap. II. ‘TIbid., pp. 82, 84. 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 17 


Encyclopedia Britannica: “Evolution means the gradual 
development of ‘highly organized’ from ‘lowly organized’ 
forms, that is, of forms in which the ‘physiological divi- 
sion of labor’ is more complete from those in which it is 
less complete; of forms possessing a variety of organs 
from forms possessing but few.” 

Le Conte’s definition is well known, but may be re- 
peated here: “A continuous progressive change, according 
to certain fixed laws and by means of resident forces.” 
In short and in fine, the theory of evolution means what 
is known as transformism—that is, the transformation 
of the simpler into the more complex, of lower forms of 
life into higher by gradual processes and natural forces. 
And thus it will be used throughout this volume. 

In addition, it should be said that evolutionists do not 
all hold the same general view of the hypothesis. They 
may be divided into three classes: 1. Those who do not try 
to explain the origin of life, but hold that, life being given, 
all the diverse organic forms on the earth, including man, 
have been evolved from the primordial germ-plasm or 
cell; 2. Those who go further back, and accept the doc- 
trine of spontaneous generation (often called abio- 
genesis), or that living matter evolved from non-living 
matter by means of some mysterious physico-chemical 
process; 3. Those who go back still further, and con- 
tend that the potency, or principle, of unfolding life was 
inherent in the primordial material, whether cre- 
ated or eternal. The last is known as “cosmical evo- 
lution.” 

However widely the transformists may differ on the 
foregoing points, all of them agree on one outstanding 
tenet: namely, that man has been evolved from an animal 
ancestry; that he came up from the same primate stock 
as the simians; and, further, that all organisms must trace 


18 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


their lineage back to the primordial bioplasm or cell or 
amoeba. 

This, then, is the hypothesis with which we shall deal 
in this work, comparing it constantly with the doctrine of 
divine creation. 

Should the usual challenge that the author is not a tech- 
nical scientist be made, he would offer the simple and 
honest explanation that, while he boasts of no superior 
wisdom, he has been a student of scientific works ever 
since his youth, and has never lost his interest in scien- 
tific investigation and discovery. Indeed, at one time it 
was his desire to make the study and teaching of physi- 
cal science his life work. Even before his college days 
he was reading with avidity the works of Darwin, Spen- 
cer, Huxley, Tyndall, Proctor, Agassiz, Dawson, Hugh 
Miller, Dana and others. A young friend and he, through 
the reading of certain infidel productions, had grown very 
skeptical of the Christian religion; yet he remembers 
vividly that, while they were reading Darwin’s The Origin 
of Species, they were wont to exclaim, laughingly, “What 
a god Darwin makes of natural selection! What consum- 
mate wisdom his god has!” Since those days he has 
studied many works on the side of evolution. He has 
also read many books that oppose evolution. For this 
reason he can say—with becoming modesty, he hopes— 
that he has given both sides prolonged and earnest study. 

The author deals in this volume directly with the 
works of some of the most eminent living champions of 
evolution, makes his inductions from a first-hand exami- 
nation of their productions, and brings their findings and 
inferences before the bar of science and reason. In 
other words, he pushes the warfare into the very camp 
and citadel of the evolutionists. 

Nor does he in a single case, as far as he is aware, 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 19 


call in question any of their facts; indeed, he gladly 
acknowledges them all. Neither does he question their 
intelligence, honesty or motives. He tries, as far as pos- 
sible, to deal with their principles, claims and arguments. 
What he does interrogate is only their speculations, de- 
ductions and over-broad generalizations. 

Therefore, while he makes no claims of great scien- 
tific erudition—that would not be modest—he ventures 
to hope that the scientific exponents of evolution, as well 
as others, will give his arguments fair and judicial con- 
sideration, and will do so purely in the interest of truth 
and human welfare. 

At the beginning of his work, the author desires to 
register his firm and sincere conviction, after years of 
study and experience, that the Bible and true science 
are in amicable accord. In saying this, he means two 
things: 1. The Bible honestly, simply and clearly inter- 
preted at its face value, not manipulated to mean any- 
thing that subjective conceptions may want it to mean. 
2. The real results of scientific investigation, not the un- 
verified guesses and speculations of science. These 
points will be carefully elucidated in the chapters that are 
to follow. 


CHAPTER II 
WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 
Tue QuEST FOR AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION 


There is a certain ancient book in the world which 
offers a definite solution of the profound problem of ori- 
gins. The book to which we refer is the Bible. We 
shall note, at the beginning of our study, by means of a 
constructive interpretation, the kind of appeal which the 
biblical doctrine makes to our reason and judgment. 

The problem of the origin of the universe is properly 
the first to challenge inquiry. The cosmos is here. That 
fact cannot be denied, for we cognize the universe as 
real, and know ourselves as a part of it. Whence came 
it? Much human speculation has been expended on that 
problem, but most of it, candor compels one to say, has 
been pathetically unfruitful of satisfying results. Turn- 
ing to the Holy Scriptures, we cannot help noting how 
clearly and simply, and with what apparent ease and 
equanimity, the problem is explained. Here is no labored 
effort, no struggle with uncertainties. 

The Bible opens with the stately and conmpichtoeite 
statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens 
and the earth.” When we seriously consider that decla- 
ration, does it not seem to be a most intelligible and up- 
lifting account of the origin of the universe? It is lucid- 
ity itself. It assigns an adequate cause for all finite and 
palpable things. We may well ask, “What other cause 


20 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 21 


would be adequate?” In real earnestness, too, we might 
well raise the question, Would any one actually prefer 
some other than a divine origin for the universe? Fur- 
ther on we shall have to consider this question. For the 
present we leave it to simmer in the reader’s mind. 

There is also the problem of the genesis of life on the 
earth. Many learned tomes have been written for the 
purpose of solving that problem. As yet no adequate 
solution has been propounded and established by human 
research. If we accept the sacred Scriptures, however, 
the problem has a simple and rational solution; for, 
since God is the living, all-wise and omnipotent God, He 
could very easily have created the vital power or prin- 
ciple (the é/an vital) as soon as the earth was ready to 
sustain and propagate organisms. Here again an en- 
tirely adequate cause for the after grand result has been 
assigned. Thus it may be said that the Bible proposes 
the best scientific hypothesis for the beginning of life on 
the earth. 

There is also the problem of man’s origin. Much time 
and labor have been expended by human reason in an 
effort to decipher that puzzle; yet no satisfactory scien- 
tific solution has been forthcoming. Once again we turn 
to the Bible where we read the pregnant statement: 
“And God created man in His own image; in the image 
of God created He him; male and female created He 
them.” Whatever else may be thought of this teaching, 
it certainly may be said to be reasonable and inspiring. 
If it is true, it may well be called good news. One would 
think that everybody would rejoice on receiving the in- 
formation that man had so high and holy an origin, and, 
therefore—to carry out the reasonable inference—must 
have been created for a noble purpose and a worth while 
destiny. 


22 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Another problem that has perturbed human thought 
from time immemorial is that of the origin of sin. Sin 
and sorrow are in the world. Whence did they come? 
No proposed human solution of the rise and spread of 
sin has gone to the root of the question; it has been left 
in obscurity. However, when we examine the biblical 
solution, we find it to be clear, simple and fundamental. 
Sin came into the world through the wrong choice of a 
free moral agent—one who was endued with the ability to 
choose between good and evil. How else could sin have 
originated and still be sin in the sense of guilt? If it 
came by necessity, it would not be sin, whatever else it 
might be called. Thus the Bible gives the deepest pos- 
sible ethical solution of our problem. 

At the same time it teaches that the world is a moral, » 
not a merely mechanistic, economy—and a moral econ- 
omy is the highest order of which we can form any 
conception. 

However, even though sin has been permitted to enter 
the world, the Bible does not leave the human family in 
the lurch. What shall be said as to the origin and 
method of our deliverance from sin? That is perhaps the 
most vital of all our problems. Here again the Bible is 
ready with an adequate and satisfying solution. It 
teaches us that, “in the fullness of time,” God sent His 
eternally begotten Son into the world to rescue and re- 
deem man, restore to him the divine image which had 
been lost through sin, and bring him back into pure and 
happy fellowship with his Creator and Benefactor—a fel- 
lowship that is to last forever. 

Surely these doctrines seem to be both rational and 
uplifting. One would think that everybody would want 
them to be true, because they solve all our most vital 
problems in so satisfying a way. Moreover, one would 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 23 


think that all persons would make every possible effort 
to discover by the empirical (experimental) method 
whether or not this Book, which proposes so adequate a 
solution of life’s problems, is a true and divinely inspired 
Book. You see, if it is the product of a divine revelation, 
it is not only true, but it is gloriously true. 

The question immediately before us in this present 
study pertains to the origin of the cosmos. ‘‘Whence 
came the universe?” is a question that has been asked 
from time immemorial. It is important for human wel- 
fare that it be rightly answered. No earnest mind can be 
at rest and at the same time remain non-committal on this 
paramount issue. Let us first consider in detail the bibli- 
cal solution and the kind of appeal it makes to reason. 


Tue DEFINITE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE 


“In the beginning.” + Does not that seem to be the 
right way to begin a narrative which is meant to present 
a complete world-view and set forth the rationale of all 
finite things? It would not have been finally fundamental 
to begin the story at any later period in the history of 
the cosmos. The inspired historian was led to go back 
as far as it was possible for human thought to go. That 
seems to be a reasonable mode of procedure, does it not? 
Then, too, if the Bible is God’s revelation, it should be 
able to go back to the source and beginning of all finite 
realities. 

Again, “In the beginning God.” It would be difficult 
to conceive of a better way to start the universe and 
bring it into existence than to begin with God, the trans- 


* Gen. i.t. 
*See Alexander T. Ormond, The Philosophy of Religion. 


24 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


cendent Being who has existed from eternity and who, 
therefore, antedates all finite things, which must have 
had their beginning in time. Whatever else human 
thought may conceive in addition, the eternal, self- 
existent, all-powerful, all-wise personal God constitutes 
the most satisfying and rational basis and cause for all 
finite realities. And, moreover, it is most judiciously rea- 
sonable to go back far enough to secure an adequate basis 
and cause of the universe. It would be superficial to stop 
before going back as far as it is possible for thought to go. 
Observe the next crucial word in this initial verse of the 
Bible: “In the beginning God created.” Here again the 
biblical teaching probes into the very structure of things. 
The Hebrew word for “create” is bara, which in this 
place certainly means to bring into existence an entity, 
force, or quality, that had no prior existence. ‘Therefore, 
we have here in the first verse of the Bible the great doc- 
trine of creation ex nihilo. What a sublime conception 
for a writer living far back in the childhood of the human 
race to achieve and to express! How came he by it? - 
How did it occur that he was able to phrase such a con- 
ception in such simple, lucid and dignified language? The 
ethnic religions teach that the gods were evolved out of 
the All, but their founders were never able to conceive 
of an all-wise and all-powerful personal God, existing 
from eternity, and bringing the universe into being by 
a direct act of creation. Even the wisest ancient phi- 
losophers, like Plato and Aristotle, were unable to rise 
to that exalted idea, but believed that matter was eternal 
and God only the framer or artificer of the universe. 
Surely this supreme biblical conception of God and the 
creation could not have come up from beneath; it must 
have come down from above—from the revealing God 
Himself. Never could it have arisen by naturalistic evo- 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 25 


lution. If it was divinely revealed to the writer of 
Genesis, then we have a strategic point where evolution 
fails to explain the facts. How did it happen, too, that 
only this writer of ancient times—this writer of Genesis— 
was able to grasp so clearly the monotheistic idea, at a 
time when all the other peoples of his day were steeped 
in polytheism and idolatry? 

This initial statement of the Bible also affords a secure 
resting place for the earnest and inquiring soul. It satis- 
fies man’s emotional nature and aspirations, as well as his 
intellectual demands. For if God created the universe, 
it follows logically that he is able to sustain it, govern it, 
bring it to its divinely intended destiny, and cause “all 
things to work together for good to them that love Him.” 
Here are comfort for the troubled heart and satisfaction 
for the intellect and reason. The Creator of the uni- 
verse must also be its Sovereign. This conception, there- 
fore, makes supreme Intelligence and Personality the 
force behind, and in, the universe, and that is great gain 
for science, philosophy and religion. 

It is greatly to be regretted that Dr. James Moffatt, in 
his recent professed translation of the Old Testament, has 
woven so many of his unsupported subjective notions into 
his work, and thus has done despite to the Word of God. 
Why not give a simple, clear and literal translation? 
This is the way he begins the Genesiacal narrative: “This 
is the story of how the universe was formed. When God 
began to form the universe, the world was void and 
vacant.” But that is not according to the Hebrew text. 
The literal translation of the first verse is this: “In the 
beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The 
first sentence of the Hebrew Bible is a complete declara- 
tive sentence, not a subordinate one. It does not begin 
with “When.” There is no “When” in the Hebrew text. 


26 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Moreover, the Hebrew writer used the verb bara, 
which in this context means to create, and so also in 
Gen. i.27. He did not use the verb yatsar,? which means 
to form. This new translation therefore seems to nullify 
the doctrine of divine creation, and imply that the ma- 
terial of the universe is eternal and that at a certain 
point of time God ‘“‘began to form” it—that is, to mold it 
into shape. What kind of a philosophy is that? It is 
going back to the outmoded doctrine of Plato, Aristotle, 
the Gnostics and the Manicheans. How much more 
rational and satisfactory is the biblical doctrine of 
creation! 

Let us now finish this great sentence: “In the begin- © 
ning God created the heavens and the earth.” ‘The writer 
mentions the “heavens” first. At that early period of 
the world’s history the conception must somehow 
have been given to him that the rest of the universe is 
greater than this little planet on which we dwell. Yet 
he lived and wrote centuries before the time of Coper- 
nicus and Galileo. This initial statement seems to show 
that the Bible does not teach the old Ptolemaic or geo-- 
centric theory of the universe, but rather the Coper- 
nician view. 

Still, the biblical scribe did not go to the opposite 
extreme. Subsequently he gave most of his attention to 
the earth, just as he should have done, because it must 
have been revealed to him that the earth was to be the 
arena of the greatest conceivable transactions, both di- 
vine and human—the creation and history of mankind 
and the redemption of the human family through the in- 
carnation of the Son of God. Thus the biblical writer 
seems to have been endued with knowledge that tran- 
scended earthly wisdom. 


* Gen. ii.7, 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 27 


Tue ETERNAL EXISTENCE OF GoD 


At this point a counter question is likely to arise—a 
question of much depth and grave significance. Al- 
though difficult, it must not be evaded. We must be as 
thoroughgoing as possible. The question to which we 
refer is this: “Who made God?” There are perhaps 
few people who have not at some time asked that crucial 
question, and asked it, too, with more or less anxious 
concern. This problem troubled Professor Tyndall in 
his day. He says that sometimes he could not sleep at 
night for worrying over the question, ‘“Who made God?” 

How shall we deal with it? First, the question implies 
a, contradiction; for if some other being made God, then 
God would not be God, but would be only a creature. 
When we use the word God, we mean to designate the 
Ultimate Being. If the question, “Who made God?” 
were repeated again and again, it would involve the idea 
of an unending series running back and back and resting 
on nothing; and that would be absurd. The mind would 
never reach a resting place. 

A better way to work out the problem is this: There is 
something now, for the universe is here and we are here. 
Since there is something now, there must have always 
been something; for if there ever was a time when there 
was nothing, nothing could have ever been. Ex nihilo 
nihil fit. Therefore there must be some ultimate reality 
which has always existed. Since that is so, in what kind 
of an ultimate reality shall we believe? Is it not far and 
away better to believe the ultimate reality to be an all- 
wise and all-powerful personal God than to believe it to 
be only crude, insensate material substance? To put it 
gently, and yet bluntly, it is not more reasonable to accept 
a divine philosophy than a groundling philosophy? 


28 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


To place back of and in the universe an omnipotent 
personal God is to assign an adequate cause for the cos- 
mos and all its varied phenomena from the lowest to the 
highest—from the primordial material to the highest 
flights of human genius and: the most exalted attainments 
of human sainthood. God as the ultimate cause explains 
everything. Therefore the theistic world-view is the 
best scientific hypothesis with which to begin our 
investigations. 

Another mode of reasoning leads to the same conclu- 
sion. The universe seems to be a developing universe. 
There is good reason to believe that it was not always 
in its present highly developed condition, but that in the 
course of time it has passed through various progressive 
stages from an undiversified, homogeneous state to its 
present diversified state of heterogeneity. Perhaps its 
original state was the universal ether in a condition of 
perfect equilibrium. It is surely evident that there was 
a time when no life existed on the earth; there was also 
a time when no animals nor human beings were here. 
So it seems to be clear that the universe is a developing 
universe. 

Now let us reason the matter through. If the cosmos 
were an eternally unfolding one, it should have reached 
its present status long ago; because it had eternity in 
which to develop. But since it has reached only its pres- 
ent imperfect stage of development, that fact is prima 
facie evidence that it had a beginning in time. Then it 
must have been created; but it could not have created 
itself; therefore it must have been created by some Being 
who never had a beginning. This reasoning leads us back 
to the Ultimate, Absolute, Self-existent Being—God.+* 

Thus reason itself points to the Christian world-view 


*M. Bross Thomas, The Biblical Idea of God. 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 29 


as the only consistent and adequate philosophy. It is 
encouraging and inspiring to dwell upon this beautiful 
agreement between the Bible and reason. 

In the next place, we shall examine some world-views 
that differ from that which is presented in the Holy 
Scriptures. 


THe MATERIALISTIC WoRLD-VIEW 


As has so often been said, this is a materialistic age. 
Many of the so-called scientists of the day have gone over 
to a materialistic philosophy, and seem almost to exult in 
the idea that they have crowded God out of the world. 
The questionnaire of Dr. James H. Leuba® is all too 
obvious and saddening a proof of the foregoing assertion, 
that many American scientists have gone over to the 
materialistic camp. 

And yet materialism is a superficial view; it holds that 
the only entity is matter; while those higher realities— 
mind, soul, spirit—are non-existent or are only epi- 
phenomena. Thought is only the result of secretions in 
the brain, just as bile is the result of secretions in the 
liver. Is it not true, then, that the materialist thinks 
only in the lowest possible terms? He seems to be inca- 
pable of thinking on the higher levels; that is, in purely 
psychical, ethical and spiritual terms. Is it not strange 
and pathetic that there are people, some of them occupy- 
ing high places in academic circles, who actually seem to 
glory in the denial of the existence of the soul and all 
spiritual realities? ° 

° The Belief in God and Immortality. 

*Vet the author believes that, since 1916, and especially since the 
World War, there has been a decided reaction on the part of scientists 
toward a re-appraisal of spiritual realities and values, which is leading 


them to estimate them more highly, and to recognize the inadequacy of 
the mechanistic view of the universe. 


30 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


But wherein lies the weakness of the materialistic the- 
ory? Is it a rational and scientific world-view? Let us 
propose a few questions to the materialist: If matter is 
the only reality, how could personalities like us men ever 
have evolved out of impersonal substance? Can some- 
thing higher and nobler evolve from something lower, and 
that merely by means of resident forces? Ex nihilo 
nihil fit. 

What the mind craves is an adequate philosophy; what 
the soul desires is an adequate religion. And surely ma- 
terialism does not posit an adequate religious or philo- 
sophic basis for the universe, and especially for the higher 
and finer phenomena that it exhibits—namely, personal, 
ethical and spiritual experiences. On the other hand, if 
you put the personal, omnipotent and omniscient God por- 
trayed in the Bible back of and in the universe, then, 
and then indeed and only, do you assign an adequate 
cause for all its phenomena. 

Let us look at the question from another angle. Belief 
in God, or in some kind of supernatural beings, is all but 
universal. No tribes have been found, however low in 
the scale of civilization, who do not have some kind of 
religion, some conception of the supernatural. Religion 
seems to be inborn. Some one has said that “man is in- 
curably religious.” And, besides, in many countries the 
religion of the people is the most dominant force in their 
lives. 

Now, if there is no entity existent but material 
substance, and yet it has caused almost all the 
peoples of the earth to believe that there is a God, 
then, by that very token, material substance must be 
a universal falsifier! Therefore, its testimony cannot 
be accepted on any account. Even when it makes the 
materialist believe only in material substance, it may be 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 31 


fooling him! So we repeat, materialism is an inadequate 
philosophy. 

There is a good deal in Professor D. Maill Edwards’ 
recent book with which we cannot agree, especially his 
acceptance (too readily, we think) of the theory of evolu- 
tion; but we cannot help rejoicing in his acute and sturdy 
criticism of the materialistic and mechanistic philosophy 
of the day. Here is a sentence which gives the material- 
ist something to think about: “It is enough to say that, 
by reducing all things to matter as alone ultimately real, 
and thus making the lowest common measure of all things 
the absolute ground of them all, materialism is guilty of 
over-simplifying in an almost naive way the complex facts 
of life and of the world.” * A writer of such ability as 
Professor Edwards ought, we think, to come out openly 
for the full-orbed philosophy of Christian theism, includ- 
ing the doctrine of special creation. 


MATTER Not ETERNAL 


Another humanly devised theory says that matter is 
eternal; therefore it was not created. Plato and Aristotle 
held this view; so did the Gnostics and Manicheans, who 
were heretics of the early Christian centuries. Plato and 
the Gnostics maintained that matter was evil. Aristotle 
denied this, although he held that God was only the 
framer and artificer of the universe, not its Creator. 

What is defective in this theory? It is this: There 
cannot be two eternals subsisting side by side, nor two 
infinites, nor two absolutes. The absolute and the rela- 
tive may subsist simultaneously, but there can be only one 
absolute and self-existent Being. Therefore to say that 
God and matter are both eternal is a contradiction, a 

"Philosophy of Religion, p. 221. 


32 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


metaphysical impossibility. The biblical doctrine of God 
as the eternal Being and the Creator of all finite and 
relative existences is again triumphant. 

Another method of reasoning on this important point 
is this: If the material universe is eternal, it must be 
infinite; because it could not be infinite in one way, that 
of duration, and finite in other ways, as that conception 
would involve an absurdity. But the physical universe 
cannot be infinite, for, being composed of finite parts, 
it must as a whole be finite, however immense. Again, 
since each part is dependent on some other part or parts, 
it must as a whole be dependent; therefore it must finally 
be dependent on something that is eternal, infinite, inde- 
pendent, self-existent—that is, the Christian God, with 
whom all things are possible and who is “from everlast- 
ing to everlasting.” 


THe THeory oF A FINITE Gop 


A few words must be said regarding the modern doc- 
trine of a finite God. John Stuart Mill held this view; 
also William James, and so does H. G. Wells to-day. 
Since sin and suffering are in the world, these men have 
tried to exonerate God from blame by declaring Him to 
be finite, and, therefore, unable to prevent their occur- 
rence. In this way they imagine they have given a plaus- 
ible theodicy. Then they add that we are in the world 
to help God out of His dilemma, and perhaps some time 
His efforts and ours combined may succeed in winning 
the victory over evil. 

What reply shall be made to the exponents of this 
theory? For one thing, it is a hopeless doctrine. It 
makes God a helpless being, and that is fatal to anything 
like solid hope and comfort. If God was not powerful 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 33 


and wise enough to prevent the advent of sin into the 
world, how will He ever be able to overcome sin? Our 
assistance will avail Him nothing, since, as He created 
us, our strength can add nothing to His power. Indeed, 
since the majority of people in the world do wrong and 
thus line themselves up in opposition to Him, that would 
seem only to increase His burden and make Him all the 
more impotent. So we see that it is a futile and dismal 
doctrine.’ It is inconsistent for the Pragmatist to advo- 
cate this doctrine. 

The only doctrine that can and does put courage and 
fiber into the human soul is the doctrine that God is 
supreme, all-powerful and all-wise, as the Bible portrays 
Him. Then it follows that, since He permitted sin to 
come into the world, He knew at the creation that He 
could deal adequately with the resulting situation and in 
His own good time overcome evil. God entered on no 
foolhardy adventure when He created the universe and 
constituted it a moral economy. 


Can EvoLuTION EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE? 


And what shall be said of the theory of evolution, so 
much in vogue to-day as a world-view? ‘This is so great 
a subject that it would be better to deal with it at length 
and in detail whenever it is taken up, and this will be 
done later on in this work. Yet there are a few proposi- 
tions concerning it to be presented for consideration in 
this connection. 

Many of the advocates of evolution seem to hold that it 
is sufficient to account for all phenomena. Instead of re- 


®See George B. McCreary, Art. in Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct., 1923; A. S. 
Pringle-Pattison, The Idea of God in the Light of Recent Philosophy; 
and Henry C. Sheldon, Pantheistic Dilemmas and Other Essays in Phi- 
losophy and Religion. 


34 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


maining modestly at home in the realm of empirical sci- 
ence, its exponents are ambitious to formulate a philoso- 
phy of the universe. So we must enter the domains 
of both science and philosophy in dealing with the 
theory. | 

First we must inquire: How does evolution account 
for the origin of matter and force? Could matter and 
force have been evolved out of nothing? Can evolution 
account for the origin of life, sentiency, self-conscious- 
ness, conscience, or spirituality? 

To be evolved means to be rolled out. Can something 
be rolled out that was not previously rolled in? Evolu- 
tion is defined as a series of gradual progressive changes 
effected by means of resident forces. That is practically 
Le Conte’s definition, and it is the only scientific one, the 
only bona fide article. But think for a moment. Could 
the non-living evolve into the living by means of resident 
forces? Could the non-conscious evolve into the con- 
scious? Could the non-moral evolve into the moral? 
Could the non-spiritual evolve into the spiritual? Is it 
not an axiom of human thought that every effect and 
event must have an adequate cause? The necessary an- 
swer to these inquiries will show the utter inadequacy of 
naturalistic evolution. Its champions are guilty of the 
logical fallacy of canceling the law of causality. 

There are those, however, who advocate “theistic evo- 
lution.” We have nothing but the kindliest feeling for 
the men who are making so heroic an effort to salvage 
theism and Christianity and at the same time hold on 
to the evolution theory. But from the viewpoints of both 
science and philosophy their efforts seem to be futile; 
for, if God is introduced as personally active in the proc- 
ess, that very fact nullifies evolution itself, which means 
progressive changes “‘by means of resident forces.” 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 35 


The following mode of reasoning seems to be conclu- 
sive: If God enters personally into the process, something 
new is constantly being injected from without to make it 
progressive and push it forward; and surely that is not 
what the scientists mean by evolution. That God does 
develop—note the word—many things in nature in a 
gradual way, no one will deny; but that is continents re- 
moved from what is meant by the theory of evolution. 
At every point where something new is inserted into the 
process it is divine creation—a fact which nullifies the 
evolutionary hypothesis, 

Should it be said that, when God created the primordial 
material—perhaps the universal ether—He endued it with 
all the potencies needed for its subsequent evolution, and 
then left it to itself, to be controlled by secondary forces, 
we reply: That is the outworn doctrine of English Deism 
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which spent 
its force long ago and proved its futility.2 It would mean 
an absentee God or a spectator God—a view repugnant 
even to the “modern mind,” which insists on the divine 
immanence in all cosmical processes. Thus we think we 
have shown that theistic evolution is a contradiction of 
terms. 

We propose in the place of all these humanly devised 
theories the doctrine of Christian theism, which makes 
use of at least three capital terms in accounting for the 
cosmos—creation, miracle, and development. Let us not 
suppose that we can include all the manifold divine opera- 
tions in only one term. Let us not be afraid to use as 
many terms as are needed to account adequately for 
the universe and all its diversified phenomena. Only in 
that way can we prove ourselves to be both Christians 


° Yet this doctrine is practically held by J. Arthur Thomson in Science 
and Religion, p. 216 and elsewhere. 


36 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


and philosophers. A false simplicity is futile and solves 
no problems. 


Gop THE UNIFIER- 


Let us note, in a constructive way, the rationality, 
the “sweet reasonableness,” of the biblical world-view. 
If God created the universe, that fact will fully account 
for its unity; for it is a cosmos, not a chaos. The word 
universe is derived from unus, one, and verto, to turn; 
therefore it means “turned into one.” If God created it, 
as the Bible teaches, it must be a unity, an organism, be- 
cause it was brought into being by one mind. 

Now, what is one of the chief quests of philosophy? 
To find the unifying principle or power amid all the 
diversity in the cosmos. Men intuitively believe that the 
universe is one, else they would not call it the universe. 
What is the greatest and most basic unifying principle of 
which we know anything? It is personality—the ego that 
binds all variety into consistent and vital oneness. It is 
your egoity that makes and keeps you one and the same 
individual through all the years of your life. That is the 
reason you always use the first person singular when you 
think and speak of yourself. You always say “I” or 
“me,” never “we” or “us.” 

Your body has undergone many mutations as the years 
have come and gone. Perhaps it does not contain a single 
atom that it possessed when you were a child. How 
many changes also have occurred in your mental processes 
and operations? How often your opinions have changed! 
How different are many of your emotions from what 
they once were? Your moral and spiritual faculties have 
undergone many alterations. 

And yet you are the same person that you were in 
your childhood—the same ego. You said “I” then, and 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 37 


you know you are the same “I” you were in those days. 
One thing has perdured through all the years—your per- 
sonality; one thing has unified your life amid all its diver- 
sity—your selfhood. 

Let us apply our argument to God and the universe. 
What is the one adequate unifying principle of this uni- 
verse amid its limitless diversity? Our reply is: The 
divine personality, the divine egoity—the self-conscious 
God who holds all things together in beauty and concord. 
Where else can we find an adequate unifying principle? 
But granted that this philosophy is true, it is adequate. 
And it is the philosophy which is taught in the Holy 
Bible. 

Another thought affords much comfort and uplifting 
power. The biblical doctrine of creation explains clearly 
the design so obvious in the cosmos. Purpose connotes 
intelligence and will, and they in turn imply personality; 
therefore the teleological argument, or the argument from 
design, is valid as a convincing proof of the existence of a 
personal God. In no other view can we find a rational 
explication of the obvious marks of design and adaptation 
in the world of nature and the realm of reason. 


Tue BELIEVER’S SECURITY 


The biblical world-view holds another decided advan- 
tage. If God created the universe, He is its complete 
Sovereign; He is able to sustain and control it. He is 
its physical and moral Governor. Whatever in His in- 
scrutable wisdom He may permit, you and I may feel 
secure that the universe can never pass beyond His con- 
trol. To every opposing force, however subtle and pow- 
erful, the omnipotent One is able to say, “Thus far shalt 


38 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


thou go, and no farther; here shall thy proud waves be 
stayed!” 

And a real comfort it is to repose securely on the divine 
omnipotence. That is why Christians can always reécho 
Paul’s triumphant statement, ‘All things work together 
for good to them that love God, to them that are the 
called according to His purpose.” 

Then, too, we may rely utterly on Christ’s promise, 
‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” for 
we know that there is no power that can thwart His 
eternal decree and purpose. ‘That surely is solid com- 
fort. The doctrine of Christian theism gives stability 
to the believer’s life. We may confidently pillow our 
heads on the divine sovereignty. 

The view of Christian theism also satisfies man’s ethical 
needs. The reasoning in support of this conclusion runs 
as follows: There must be an ultimate ground and source 
of right. Every one ought to be able to cognize that prin- 
ciple as an axiom. For, if there ever was a time when 
right was not, right never could have been, for it could 
not have evolved out of a non-moral basis. Morality can 
be predicated only of personal beings with rational intel- 
ligence, moral perception and free will. We never call 
minerals, vegetables and animals moral beings, because 
they are not self-conscious personalities. ‘Therefore the 
ultimate ground of right must be a person—God. This 
is the way that the biblical doctrine of theism teaches an 
adequate philosophy of the moral phenomena of the 
universe. 

The same is true respecting man’s religious needs, 
which are clamant in the very depths of his being. The 
biblical doctrine of God as a personal Creator, Preserver 
and Redeemer correlates with man’s religious needs and 
aspirations, because man can hold real communion only 


WHENCE CAME THE UNIVERSE? 39 


with a personal God. But no one can have such commu- 
nion with the impersonal God of Pantheism, or the ab- 
stract idea of humanity in the Positivism of Comte. 

We conclude this chapter by reiterating that the bib- 
lical doctrine of God offers the only adequate basis and 
explanation of all the phenomena of the universe, natural, 
psychical, moral and spiritual. 

“We sing th’ almighty power of God, 
Who bade the mountains rise; 


Who spread the flowing seas abroad, 
And built the lofty skies. 


“There’s not a plant nor flower below 
But makes Thy glories known; 
And clouds arise and tempests blow 

By order from Thy throne.” 


Having now attempted to vindicate the view of biblical 
theism and creation, we shall next investigate the status 
of the world as it came from the creative hand of God. 


CHAPTER III 
THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 
A NEw VIEWPOINT FOR GEOLOGY 


Various hypotheses respecting the creation of the 
world have been offered in connection with the study of 
geology. Let us try out another hypothesis altogether 
and see whether it will not adequately explain all the 
geological data. Perhaps we shall find that the Bible, 
although not primarily intended as a scientific textbook, 
but as a book for religious guidance and instruction, is, 
after all, more fundamentally scientific than some of the 
books that were written for that specific purpose. At 
least, no harm can come from giving this viewpoint fair - 
and judicial consideration. 


THE PRISTINE STATUS OF THE WORLD 


The Bible teaches that the world was originally created 
good; that is evident. At the end of each epoch it reports 
God as saying that what He had made was “good”; and 
at the close of the creation, after having made man in His 
own image, He pronounced all things “very good.” + The 
Hebrew word for “very” (me-od) means “exceedingly” 
or “supremely,” coming from the verb ma-ad, to “extend,” 
“to lengthen out.’”’ On this crucial passage Dr. C. F. Keil, 

* Gen. i.31. 

40 


THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 41 


the learned exegete and Hebraist, in his commentary on 
the Pentateuch, has this to say: 


God saw His work, and, behold, it was all very 
good; i.¢., everything perfect in its kind, so that 
every creature might reach the goal appointed by 
the Creator and accomplish the purpose of its exist- 
ence. By the application of the term ‘good’ to 
everything that God made, and the repetition of the 
word, with the emphasis “very” at the close of the 
whole creation, the existence of anything evil in the 
creation of God is absolutely denied, and the hypoth- 
esis entirely refuted that the six days’ work merely 
subdued and fettered an ungodly evil principle which 
had already forced its way into it.? 


To which may be added the thought that it is not prob- 
able that God would have pronounced the whole crea- 
tion “very good,” if the world was filled with ravenous 
beasts preying upon one another, and if primeval man 
was near kin to the brutes, and was engaged with them 
in a life-and-death struggle for existence. Neither is it 
inspiring or congruous to suppose that God would have 
created men and animals under such a cruel and fearsome 
economy and with such predacious proclivities. 

It is also evident that neither men nor animals were 
created carnivorous.® Let us quote: 


And God said [to the man and woman He had 
created in His own image],* Behold, I have given 
you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face 
of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit 
of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 


* Keil, Commentary on the Pentateuch, p. 67. 
* Gen. i.29, 30. *See v. 27. 


42 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird 
of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon 
the earth wherein there is life, I have given every 
green herb for food. . . . And it was so. And God 
saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was 
very good. 


On this passage Dr. Keil offers the following relevant 
comments: 


From this it follows that, according to the crea- 
tive will of God, men were not to slaughter animals 
for food, nor were animals to prey upon one another; 
consequently, the fact which now prevails universally 
in nature and the order of the world, the violent and 
often painful destruction of life, is not a primary 
law of nature, nor a divine institution founded in 
the creation itself, but entered the world along with 
death at the fall of man, and became a necessity of 
nature through the curse of sin. It was not till 
after the flood that man received authority from 
God to employ the flesh of animals, as well as the 
green herb, as food,® and the fact that, according 
to the biblical view, no carnivorous animals existed 
at the first, may be inferred from the prophetic an- 
nouncements that the cessation of sin and the com- 
plete transformation of the world into the kingdom 
of God are described as being accompanied by the 
cessation of slaughter and the eating of flesh, even 
in the case of the animal kingdom. With this the 
legends of the heathen world respecting the golden 
age of the past, and its return at the end of time, 
also correspond.® 


® Gen. ix.3. 
*See Gesenius On Isa. xi.6-8; also Keil, op. cit., p. 65. 


THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 43 


MAN’s PRIMITIVE HABITAT 


The second chapter of Genesis describes in detail the 
method of the creation and fashioning of man and woman 
in the divine image, and this agrees with Gen. i.26, 27, 
which gives a more general account of their creation, the 
two narratives being complementary, not contradic- 
tory. The second chapter also narrates how God “planted 
a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man 
whom He had formed.” Thus the Scriptures teach that 
man’s primitive habitat was a garden, not a forest, not 
a jungle. His environments were wholly pleasant and 
favorable. ‘And out of the ground made Jehovah God 
to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good 
for food.” 

In describing primitive man’s original home the biblical 
writer was accurate and specific in his use of terms. He 
stated clearly that man was placed in a garden, using the 
Hebrew noun gam. Had he wanted to teach that primi- 
tive man was brought forth in a desert, jungle, forest or 
wilderness, he could have found plenty of Hebrew words 
to convey that idea. Here are some of them: Choresh, 
forest, thicket; yaarah, a forest, an outspread place; yaar, 
a forest, a wood; yeshimon, a desolate place; midbar, a 
wilderness, desert; arvabah, a plain, an obscure or un- 
known place; tszyyah, a dry place; tou, ruin, desert; 
chorbah, a waste; meshoah, a desolation. With all these 
nouns at his command to designate a wild, noisome, 
jungle-like locality, the Hebrew writer deliberately chose 
the noun gan, which means a garden. 

Man also had free access to the fruit of all the trees 
of the garden, except the one inhibition, ‘“‘the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil.” The very fact that he was 
expressly forbidden to eat of this last tree would connote 


AA THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


that all the other trees were good. It is not even neces- 
sary to believe that the fruit of the inhibited tree was 
poisonous or unwholesome in itself, as it was placed there 
simply to afford man an opportunity to exercise his moral 
freedom—a purpose that would have been subserved even 
if the fruit of the tree were “good for food.” A child 
that eats forbidden fruit disobeys his parents, and there- 
fore does wrong, whether the fruit be wholesome or 
harmful. 

It is true, Adam was commanded to “dress and keep” 
the garden; but that simply means that he was not to be 
a malingerer; that he was to have pleasant and varied 
occupation, which would only enhance his happiness. 
The animals and birds must also have been gentle and 
docile, for God brought them to the man to be named and 
classified. ‘True, among all of them, “for man there was 
not found a help meet for him”; but that simply means 
that he was of a higher and different genus from the 
animals around him, and not that they were fierce and 
ravenous. All the circumstances connote that everything 
that God had made was “very good,” just as was stated 
in the first chapter of Genesis. Thus Genesis i and ii are 
in beautiful accord; and, as has been said, they are 
complementary. 


Tue BLIGHT THAT FELL ON MAN AND NATURE 


Then what calamity must have sometime occurred to 
cause so sad a transformation in the natural realm? In 
many ways, as Tennyson says, we to-day see “nature red 
in tooth and claw.” There are many stinging, biting, 
noisome, venomous, carnivorous creatures in the domain 
of nature, and especially where nature is still in the wild. 
Everywhere there exists more or less of a “struggle for 


THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 45 


existence.” The witness of geology, too, is to the effect - 
that at a very early time there were many birds and 
animals of prey, and that they were evidently constituted 
with organs, teeth, and claws, adapted for destruction. 
These are facts which no one can deny. Either God cre- 
ated nature in this state of struggle and bloodthirstiness, 
or in some way and for some cause the creation suffered 
a lapse. 

The author cannot avoid a feeling of revulsion against 
the thought that God created men and animals in the 
ravenous and cruel state in which many of them are 
found to-day, or in the terrific condition of a life-and- 
death struggle for existence represented by the evolution- 
ists. Note the repulsive picture of primitive man drawn 
by Mr. H. G. Wells in his Outline of History. If what he 
calls the “Old Man’”—meaning the primitive man—was 
of that filthy and beastly nature, it would be sacrilege 
even to intimate that he had been created in the divine 
image. Just as revolting is the portrait (with the accom- 
panying picture) of the earliest human being depicted by 
Dr. E. E. Free.’ True, the biblical explanation has its 
difficulties, but, taken in the large and considered all in 
all, they are not so utterly insurmountable from the ethi- 
cal viewpoint as are those theories which make God re- 
sponsible for the very creation and initiation of sin and 
misery in the world. 


How THE BIBLE EXPLAINS THE LAPSE 


What is the biblical explanation of nature’s present 
status? We put it frankly: That the blight of man’s sin 
fell upon nature’s fair domain, and converted it into what 
it is to-day. ‘This is taught either explicitly or implicitly 

"Popular Science Monthly, March, 1923. 


46 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


in a number of places in the Sacred Scriptures. We must 
give a careful exegesis of the biblical teaching. After 
Adam and Eve had sinned by eating of the forbidden 
fruit, they became conscious of their nakedness, and were 
ashamed of it. Here we have the first intimation of ugli- 
ness or repulsiveness in the world, for the connotation 
surely is that, before they sinned, they were beautiful and 
pure in the natural garb with which they were provided 
in their creation. But observe again. They did not slay 
any of the animals to make coverings for themselves, 
but “sewed fig-leaves together, and made for themselves 
girdles.” ® This proves that no blighting effect of their 
sin had as yet fallen upon the natural realm. The first 
intimation of the slaying of animals is given when, after 
God had pronounced His curse upon the sinning pair, this 
statement is made: “And Jehovah God made for Adam 
and his wife coats of skins, and clothed them.” ® Thus 
the sin of man, bringing repulsiveness and shame, neces- 
sitated the first shedding of blood in nature’s domain. 
The next point to which we shall advert is not quite 
so clear; yet we believe that proper inferences may be 
drawn, without eisegesis, from the language of the Bible. 
After the sin of man, God pronounced a curse upon the 
serpent, saying: ‘Because thou hast done this, cursed art 
thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; 
upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all 
the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee 
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he 
shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” *° 
When the statement is made that the serpent shall be 
cursed “above all cattle and every beast of the field,” the 
language seems to connote that the cattle and beasts 
would also be under the blight, but that blight would fall 


* Amer. Rev. Ver., margin. ° Gen. iii.21. Gen. iii.14, 15. 
8 } 


THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 47 


most heavily upon the reptile kingdom. It is also said: 
“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the 
field which Jehovah God had made.” 11 The serpent, 
therefore, although good and innocent by creation, was 
the representative of the class of animals which had sub- 
tlety—that is, the elements of nature which, if perverted 
or misused, would bring upon them the saddest and most 
pernicious effects, converting them from innocently acute 
creatures into “subtle” ones, in the bad sense of the 
term. In this way the blight fell in varying degrees on 
the whole animal kingdom, just as animals to-day possess 
varying degrees of repulsiveness and ferocity. So it would 
seem that the Bible describes the character of nature as 
we know it to-day. 

Not only did the divine curse fall upon the animal 
kingdom, but also upon the ground and upon the vegetable 
world; for God, in speaking to Adam, used the following 
language: “Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil 
shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also 
and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt 
eat of the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face 
shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; 
for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto 
dust thou shalt return.” 7” 

Nothing could be plainer than that the Bible means 
to teach here that man’s sin brought a curse upon the 
ground and the vegetable kingdom; thus implying that 
originally they were in a state of beauty and spontaneous 
productiveness, and could be cultivated without irksome 
toil. In this regard, also, the Bible is consistent in its 
teaching. Nature, as originally created and constituted, 
was not in the condition we find it now. It has suffered 
a lapse of some kind. 


4 Gen. iii.r. # Gen. iii.17-19. 


48 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


From another viewpoint the biblical teaching is har- 
monious and self-consistent. In the first two chapters 
of Genesis man is everywhere represented as being the 
head and apex of the natural creation. He was made 
last, the crowning work of God, and all nature was made 
for him, and he was to have dominion over all the other 
creatures. He was not made for nature; nature was 
made for him. If that is true—and it is the biblical 
teaching—nothing can be more consistent than that, when 
the organic head and captain of the natural realm fell 
into sin, the natural creation itself should be shaken from 
top to bottom and should suffer a lapse of some kind. 
When the general of an army is slain, the army itself is 
thrown into confusion. When the ruler of a nation falls 
into disgrace, the whole nation suffers as a result. More- 
over, it is inconceivable that a sinful being should dwell 
in a perfect habitat; hence our first parents were ejected 
from the garden of Eden, and placed in an environment 
that was suited to their fallen nature. Here again the 
consistency and depth of the biblical teaching are seen. 

That a blight came upon the natural creation is clearly 
taught by the apostle Paul, who evidently looked upon sin 
as having had a cosmical effect. Consider carefully this 
statement: 


For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time 
are not worthy to be compared with the glory which 
shall be revealed to us-ward. For the earnest ex- 
pectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing 
of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected 
to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of Him 
who subjected it [cf. Gen. iii. 17-19]; in hope that 
the creation itself shall be delivered from the bond- 
age of corruption into the liberty of the glory of 


THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 49 


the children of God. For we know that the whole 
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together 
until now. And not only so, but we ourselves also, 
who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we our- 
selves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adop- 
tion, to wit, the redemption of our body.?® 


This is a remarkable passage. Its indicia are: The 
creation has come under a blight; it is in bondage; it has 
been subjected to vanity, not of its own volition, but 
through God’s act; it is now groaning and travailing just 
as is the human family; it expects to be delivered from the 
same bondage and into the same liberty as the children 
of God; the time of this mutual disenthrallment will be 
the last day, when our bodies shall be raised from the 
dead. The teaching is that, as nature shares our travail, 
so she shall share our deliverance and coming glory. All 
these points agree with the teaching of the first three 
chapters of Genesis. 

Peter speaks of “the time of the restitution of all 
things.” ** He also says: “But, according to His prom- 
ise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein 
dwelleth righteousness”; 1° by which may be meant 
that the old economy of sin and curse will pass away, 
and the pristine condition, with added glory through re- 
demption, will be restored. The apostle John saw “the 
holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven 
from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her hus- 
band. And I heard a voice out of the throne saying, 
Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall 
dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God 
Himself shall be with them, and be their God.” 1* Jesus 


* Rom. viii.r8-23 (Amer. Rev. Ver.). TI Pet. iii13. 
* Acts iii.ar. * Rev. xxi.2, 3. 


50 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


uttered this beatitude: “Blessed are the meek; for they 
shall inherit the earth.” !7 The prophet looked forward 
to a happy, restored natural dominion: “And the wolf 
shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down 
with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the 
fatling (shall dwell) together; and a little child shall lead 
them. . . . They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my 
holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowl- 
edge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” +8 

Thus we see the full-orbed teaching of the Bible: first 
a beautifully created world, then a fallen world, and 
finally a redeemed world. | 


How THE BIBLE AND GEOLOGY AGREE 


Does such a regimen agree with geology? Do not the 
rocks and the fossils tell a different story? Do they not 
indicate that many of the animals were carnivorous from 
the start, and that man’s remote ancestors were denizens 
of the forest and the jungle? Did not the evolution of. 
all things require many, many millenniums? 

We must examine this matter judicially. The sup- 
posed extreme age of the fossils of animals and men is 
based on the theory of evolution; but that theory has not 
been empirically proven, because no Cases of spontaneous 
generation and transmutation of species have ever been 
brought forward. From some data such inferences have 
been drawn by a certain class of scientists, but the infer- 
ences, in the absence of absolute proof, may be non se- 
quiturs. So we must write under the hypothesis of evolu- 
tion, “Not proven.” 

Suppose, however, before we proceed further, we exam- 
ine the hypothesis in a somewhat technical way. Get 


™ Matt. v.5. Tsa. xi.6-9. 


THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 51 


down your latest textbook on geology. Turn to the table 
giving the taxonomy of the various strata of the fossilifer- 
ous rocks. They are arranged in the following order 
beginning at the bottom: Primary (Archean), having few 
fossils of the lowest forms from the invertebrates to the 
amphibians; Mesozoic (middle or intermediate life), 
showing fossils of birds and reptiles; Cenozoic (recent 
life), containing fossils of mammals and man. Let us 
remember this order and the names attached. 

Now it would be natural for you think that, when. you 
go out into the natural realm to study geology first-hand, 
you would find the various strata of fossil bearing rocks 
located in precisely the order above designated. The 
lowest and simplest forms of life would come first, and 
would be in the bottom rock strata, then the next higher, 
then the next, and so on up the scale until man is reached. 
That surely is the impression you would receive from 
looking at the classification in some of the textbooks. 

But when you go to nature herself, you find that she 
is far from conforming to the arrangement of the system 
makers. ‘There are many cases in which the Cenozoic 
rocks lie directly on the Primary rocks, all the interven- 
ing forms of Paleozoic and Mesozoic life being absent. 
Then how do the intervening forms get into their shelves 
in the geologist’s series? They are placed there by his 
imagination in the interest of his theory. They are 
manhandled. 

Again, very often, and over wide areas, the upper 
Mesozoic rocks lie directly and conformably on top of 
the lowest system in the Paleozoic age. Still further, 
frequently the so-called “older” rocks lie above and upon 
the so-called “younger” rocks. For example, the Cam- 
brian rocks, which contain the first and simplest forms 
of life, often lie on top uf rocks containing fossils far 


52 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


advanced in the scale of organic life. Indeed, in Alberta 
and Montana there is an area five hundred miles long 
from south to north and many miles wide, where Primary 
(Algonkian) rocks in the southern part and Carbonifer- 
ous rocks in the northern lie directly on top of the Cre- 
taceous formations, which grade much higher in the man- 
made schedule. Think of it for a moment. Here are 
Algonkian rocks, containing no fossils, lying above the 
rocks containing the highest forms of life in the Mesozoic 
period! And this, too, over a vast area. Would that 
not seem to prove that the Algonkian strata were formed 
after the Cretaceous strata? If not, how did the latter 
get so deeply imbedded (hundreds of feet) under the 
former? ‘The so-called “thrust-faults” will not account 
for the strata lying conformably upon other strata over 
so extended an area. 

In still another way does nature refuse to submit to 
the manhandling of the evolutionary geologists. There 
is no locality on the earth where the stratification of the 
scientists is represented in full—no place where the ar- 
rangement by series holds good throughout; no place 
where the Primary rocks lie at the bottom and all the 
others follow in the humanly assigned succession from 
the lowest to the highest. The fact is, the strata occur 
in every possible relative order, but nowhere do they 
follow the serial order laid down for them by the 
geologists. 

What is the conclusion? No geologist can prove by 
an appeal to the fossils and rocks that the lower forms 
of life came first and that the higher forms followed in 
clocklike order. Therefore, no geologist can prove that 
one form was evolved from another. According to the 
testimony of the rocks and fossils, the different forms 
of life may have existed contemporaneously in different 


‘THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 53 


parts of the earth, just as they do to-day. There may 
have been a succession of the various forms, as the Bible 
teaches, but geology—studied from nature herself and 
not from the books—seems to indicate clearly that no 
great length of time was consumed in their production. 
If evolution and uniformity were the regnant laws in the 
geological ages, why do not the fossil remains occur in 
the regular series assigned them by the advocates of those 
theories? Science must be based on nature’s testimony, 
not on the human manipulation of nature’s facts. 

Many geologists argue that erosion and precipitation 
and other mechanical action would require millions on 
millions of years to bring the earth to its present status. 
On this matter there is much difference of opinion among 
scientists. However, their views are based on the assump- 
tion that the same conditions that prevail now in nature’s 
domain have always prevailed; hence the theory of Lyell, 
that of uniformity. But that theory has not been estab- 
lished by scientific demonstration. Indeed, there are 
many indications of great cataclysms in the history of 
our globe—evidences of a great deluge, of vast and de- 
structive irruptions and shattering earthquakes. There 
are many evidences that once universal summer prevailed 
over the globe, for the remains of plants and animals of 
the temperate and tropical zones are found in arctic and 
antarctic regions. Many animal remains in those regions 
are still in a marvelous state of preservation, proving 
that they were suddenly overtaken by frigid weather and 
were preserved in cold storage for centuries. The so- 
called “thrust-faults” of the geologists, if they ever took 
place, would prove that at some time in the past catas- 
trophic events must have occurred. 

Let us suppose now, for the sake of the hypothesis, 
that the original creation was good, as Holy Writ 


54 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


teaches; then came the fall of man involving the lapse 
of nature, causing many of the insects, birds and animals 
to become predacious; this condition continuing until the 
great cataclysm, perhaps the Noachian deluge. There is 
an almost universal tradition among the nations of the 
earth of such a vast inundation. Many of these tradi- 
tions are remarkably like the flood narrative in the 
Bible; 1 whereas there is no ethnic tradition anywhere, 
so far as we know, that man has descended from an ape 
or a pre-ape ancestry.*° 

Now, that great cataclysm, perhaps affecting even the 
relative position of the earth to the sun, may have caused 
-many upheavals of the earth, the removal of vast sec- 
tions from place to place, and the covering of plants, 
great forests, animals and men deep beneath the ground 
and rocks. Thus fossils would be formed under certain 
conditions, and their depths beneath the earth would 
give no clue to their relative age. Carboniferous forests, 
buried deep and smothered beneath overlying’ soil and 
rocks, would form our immense coal beds. In such — 
circumstances erosion by water, ice, snow and frost would 
be very rapid. A few thousand years would bring about 
marvelous changes in the topography of the earth,?? 

No fossils of the animals of the golden age before the 
fall of man can be found to-day, because that dispensa- 
tion probably did not last long, and no destruction of 
animal life could have occurred during that perfect 
period. 

But how shall we account for the low types of men 


See George A. Barton, Archeology and the Bible, pp. 235 ff. 

* The theory of the evolution of man from a pre-ape pedigree is 
dealt with somewhat fully in subsequent chapters. 

See George McCready Price, The Fundamentals of Geology; 
Q. E. D.: New Light on the Doctrine of Creation; The New Geology; 
The Phantom of Organic Evolution. 


THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY $55 


whose fossil remains have been found? It should be 
noted that not all the fossiliferous human remains prove 
that these ancient men were of a low order cranially, 
although some of them obviously were.*? Our reply is, 
there is plenty of evidence all around us of degeneration 
among men. You can see it everywhere; you need not 
hunt for it. After the flood and the confusion of tongues, 
tribes of men would probably venture forth from the 
centers of civilization into the hinterlands, and becoming 
separated from the rest of mankind, would naturally 
deteriorate, just as people in our own land have degen- 
erated in similar circumstances within the last few hun- 
dred years. 

“But they were cave-men!” some one exclaims. True 
enough; but about twenty-five years ago a citizen of 
Kansas, then living in a fine country mansion, showed 
us a cavity in a hillside where he and his family lived 
during the first few years of their residence on their home- 
stead. There are people to-day who live in dugouts. 
Besides, even in these days of advanced civilization and 
culture in many countries, there are native tribes living 
in remote regions who show no higher stages of civiliza- 
tion than did the so-called cave men of the paleolithic 
age. Who can say that the cave men of central Europe 
were not contemporaneous with the civilized peoples of 
ancient Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and Turkestan? If 
people of all grades and types are living simultaneously 
on the earth now, why may not the same conditions have 
prevailed in remote times? 

We believe that many of the facts of geology, eth- 
nology, tradition, history and religion confirm and abet 


“See a quotation from Henry Fairfield Osborn on the Cro-Magnon 
race in Chap. VIII of this volume, under the subhead “Several More 
Salient Points.” 


56 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


the biblical doctrine of creation here advanced, whereas 
very little data can be summoned against it. One ad- 
vantage of this view is that it assigns an adequate cause 
for all the phenomena of the universe, those of the 
highest and noblest qualitative value as well as those 
that belong only to the mechanical and material realm. 
With a personal God as the Creator, making man in His 
own image, it is easy to account for man as a self- 
conscious, moral and spiritual personality, able to dis- 
tinguish between right and wrong and to hold fellowship 
with his Maker. In this view there is no attempt to get 
something out of nothing, nor to evolve a greater out of 
a lesser, and therefore due regard is shown for the 
fundamental and structural law of causality. 

The question may be raised why God permitted sin to 
enter the world and to cast its fell shadow upon the 
natural creation. We reply, that is a metaphysical, moral 
and theological question and does not belong directly to 
the province of natural science. We have simply been 
looking at the facts of the natural world, and trying to » 
give a sufficient account of them. 

However, no advantage can be gained by the objector 
in raising the above question, because it may be said in 
reply that the Power that made the world, whatever may 
be his name, has permitted sin to enter into the creation, 
and has allowed an economy of cruelty and conflict to 
reign in the animal kingdom. So it will win us no relief 
from the problem to reject the biblical solution. A 
theodicy in any case is more or less difficult, because 
we live in a world of mystery; but it would seem to be 
quite incongruous to suppose that God designedly im- 
planted fierce and bloodthirsty proclivities in the animals 
which He brought into being, whether by creation or 
evolution. The tension of our thought is afforded a good 


THE WORLD CREATED GOOD AND HAPPY 57 


deal of relief from the doctrine that sin, the voluntary 
act of a free moral agent, brought suffering into the 
world against the will of God, and that then God in 
mercy carried out a plan of redemption by which, in 
the fullness of time, He will reinstate the pristine con- 
dition of innocence and joy in the universe and crown 
it with enhanced glory. | 

If our hypothesis is tenable and true, it will prove a 
decided advantage, help, and inspiration to both the 
scientist who is a Christian and the Christian theologian; 
for then both can accept the biblical teaching at its 
honest, literal face value, without forced eisegesis, and 
can at the same time correlate it with the empirical find- 
ings and conclusions of science. Perhaps in this way all 
conflict between religion and science may be removed. 


CHAPTER IV 
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES 


Tue Limits oF PHYSICAL SCIENCE 


A little while ago a discussion of the origin of species 
occurred in a well-known New York journal. There were 
advocates on both sides, creation and evolution, of the 
question. The writer was represented by two brief arti- 
cles, which brought him several challenges. 

One special point deserving of careful notice arose in 
the discussion. Our contention was that the evolution 
of life and species has not been proven scientifically, 
and that divine creation alone would account adequately 
for their inception. Then the challenge came to produce 
a specific case of creation in the natural realm. ~ | 

What is to be said in reply? The question cannot be 
evaded. That course would not be honest and fair. The 
scientist has a right to raise the question and to require 
a satisfactory answer. If life and species did not arise 
by evolution, how did they arise? Frankly, that is a 
fair demand. The advocate of creationism should can- 
didly admit it. 

Our reply is: Physical science cannot tell us how life 
arose. Why? First, because the scientists find no in- 
stance of the living evolving from the non-living; second, 
neither do they find any instances in nature of the sudden 
appearance of life by creation. Thus natural science has 
no way of solving the problem of origins. Then what 


58 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES = 59 


shall be done? Shall we give up the problem and become 
agnostics? We think not, for agnosticism relative to vital 
questions can never satisfy the mind. 


WHITHER SHALL WE TuRN FOR LIGHT? 


If, then, natural science cannot prove creation (just 
as it cannot prove evolution), we must use some other 
method to validate the doctrine of creation. What is that 
method? Let us classify our material. 

1. The Bible is a great and good book. It professes 
to come from God and to contain a special divine reve- 
lation. It teaches great doctrines, pure ethics, a glorious 
plan of salvation, and sets forth for man a marvelous 
destiny. It has also exercised a wonderful power for 
good in the world. Many persons, once steeped in sin, 
have been cleansed and saved by its influence and the 
Christ whom it sets forth. Millions of people have 
experienced its power and truth by conversion. 

Now, it is reasonable to believe that, if such a book 
tells us how all things originated, it would be likely to 
tell the truth. If the writers of such a salutary and 
honest book knew nothing about the method of origins, 
it is probable that they would have said nothing; it is 
hardly thinkable that they would have tried to impose 
what they knew to be falsehoods or mere myths or 
human traditions on the human family. When you re- 
member how all the biblical writers condemn sin, and 
especially falsehood and hypocrisy, it is hardly likely 
that they would themselves be guilty of the worst possible 
kind of deception. What object could they have had in 
advocating righteousness and at the same time prac- 
ticing falsehood? | 

The biblical writers tell us that all things were origi- 


60 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


nally created by the divine Being. But surely they could 
not have made that discovery by natural reason and 
observation; they must have learned it by divine revela- 
tion. And since they were honest men, their testimony 
must be true. They give us a clear-cut cosmogony in 
the first chapter of the Bible. It bears the marks of 
honesty and simplicity. How could they have known 
what occurred before any human being was brought into 
existence? They either guessed at it, and thus were 
deceivers, or else they received a divine revelation of the 
facts. We have shown how they could not have been 
impostors; therefore they must be credited with telling 
the truth. But the first chapter of Genesis positively 
assures us that all things originated .by divine creation. 
Therefore we are constrained by every rational consid- 
eration to accept the Genesiacal account as true. This 
puts the doctrine of creation on a reasonable basis. 

However, we must go further. At first, according to 
both science and the Bible, the earth was a dead earth. 
The scientists also tell us that biogenesis is the only 
known law in biology; life arises only from antecedent 
life. The Bible agrees with this view. At a certain point 
in the creative narrative we are told that God said: 
“Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, 
fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the 
seed thereof, upon the earth; and it was so. And the 
earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their 
kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, 
after their kind; and God saw that it was good.” ? 

Here three facts stand out clearly: First, the lowest 
forms of life, the vegetable forms, come first. This 
agrees with science. Second, the earth is commanded to 
“put forth” the various kinds of vegetables. As there 


* Gen. i.rr-12. 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES 61 


was no life in the earth before, this means that God 
must have created the various kinds of seeds, or germs, 
or germ-plasms, so that the earth could bring them 
forth; for nothing could come from nothing. Without 
a seed no plant can spring forth. The seed could not 
have been produced by spontaneous generation, because 
that has never been proven. So the seeds with their 
various kinds of germ-plasms must have been divinely 
created. Third, the biblical text tells us that all the 
diversified forms of vegetation brought forth “after their 
kind.” Not one word is said about one form evolving 
into another. Indeed, the precise opposite is asserted— 
each “after its kind.” The species were distinctly marked 
off, just as we see them to-day. Thus the Bible teaches 
special creation, and its teaching in respect to each 
organism reproducing “after its kind” agrees with our 
present scientific knowledge of nature’s processes. 

The same mode of argument will hold for the origin 
of the various kinds of insects, reptiles, birds, and ani- 
mals depicted in the biblical cosmogony. Sometimes the 
Bible says that the waters or the earth “brought forth”; 
at other times it uses the word “create.” In connection 
with man it uses the verbs ‘‘make,” (asak) and “create,” 
(Bara). Regarding the birds and animals, the phrase, 
“after their kind,” is used in every instance. 

So far, then, the argument stands in this form: The 
Bible is a great and good book, exercising a most salu- 
tary influence upon the world; it teaches that origins 
came by direct acts of divine creation: these facts con- 
stitute a strong reason in favor of that view of origins. 
In the absence of any scientific demonstration of any 
other method of bringing something new into existence, 
no good reason for rejecting the biblical doctrine can be 
assigned. 


62 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


2. No doubt the reply will be made that our method 
of reasoning is not empirical, because the divine authority 
of the Bible is the very point at issue; therefore we have 
been guilty of the logical fallacy of “begging the ques- 
tion.” We, of course, expected to encounter that objec- 
tion, and so we have the answer ready. The truth and 
divinity of the Bible have been established empirically. 
Do you ask, How? By experience. There are millions 
of people whose testimony cannot be impeached in any 
court, who will bear witness that once they were in dark- 
ness and sin and now they have the assurance of pardon, 
truth, and salvation. How did they obtain it? Through 
the teaching of the Bible, which sets forth Christ as the 
Savior of the world. Without the Bible they would know 
nothing of Christ and His redeeming grace and power. 
Therefore the Bible must be true, or no such experience 
could be produced by its teaching. Surely a book that 
prescribes a method by which people may be saved from 
sin, which, when tried out, is found to be effective and 
true—surely such a book cannot be mendacious and 
delusive. | 

The objection may be raised that Christians may have 
experienced the saving power and truth of Jesus Christ, 
but that fact does not prove that they have ever ex- 
perienced the events narrated in the first and second 
chapters of Genesis. But the answer to this objection is 
also at hand. The Christ, whom the converted person 
has found to be true and all-powerful, placed His own 
stamp of endorsement on those initial chapters of the 
Bible; * therefore, if He is true, they must be true. 

Does the skeptic raise the question, Is Christian ex- 
perience really empirical? We reply: It is just as 
empirical as any other fact that impinges directly upon 

7See Matt. xix.3-6; Mark x.2-9. 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES — 63 


human consciousness. How do you know that you see 
yonder tree? By experience. How do you know that 
two plus two equal four? By the same kind of impres- 
sion at the center of your consciousness. In the chemical 
laboratory when you are experimenting, how do you know 
that two parts of hydrogen and one of oxygen form 
water? By the impact which the fact makes upon your 
consciousness. 

Now, in the spiritual laboratory how do we know that, 
through repentance and faith, we experience truth, par- 
don and salvation in Jesus Christ? By the same method 
—the impingement of the fact upon our consciousness. 
And the spiritual facts are just as clearly certified as 
are the natural facts. Do we not know when we are 
happy or when we have a clear conscience, just as cer- 
tainly as we know when we see a tree or a bird? Thus 
the Bible can be proven to be true empirically—that is, 
experimentally. And if the Bible is proven true, divine 
creation is proved to be the method of origins. 

3. Here is another effective mode of reasoning: Both 
science and philosophy demand an adequate cause for 
every event. Evolution, however, is not an adequate 
cause for many of the results we see in the universe. 
Indeed, evolution is not a force at all, or a person. It 
is, even if true, only a modus operandi. There would 
have to be some adequate power to push it along and 
some directive agency to move it forward in the line 
of progress. A law is only a way of working, not a 
power that works. But the force that operates must be 
sufficient. Where will the exponents of evolution find a 
power that is adequate to produce all the wonderful 
results to be accounted for? Could dead matter produce 
something that is not inherent in it? Could the non- 
sentient give rise to the sentient? Could unconscious 


64 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


matter unfold into self-conscious personality? Where 
would be the power in unspiritual and unethical sub- 
stance to produce religious and moral qualities and 
experiences? ‘The word evolve means ‘‘to be rolled out.” 
But nothing can be rolled out that was not previously 
rolled in. Try to roll out the string in a ball of twine 
before it has been rolled in. 

However, place a divine Being like the God of the Bible 
back of the cosmos as the eternal and ultimate Reality, 
and you have posited a sufficient cause for every phe- 
nomenon that has appeared in the world—matter, because 
God is all-powerful, and therefore can create it ex nihilo; 
life, because God is a living God; mind, because God 
is omniscient Mind; personality, because God is the 
absolute Person; morality, because God is holy, loving 
and just; spirituality, because God is a Spirit and desires 
and makes possible true communion with Himself on 
the part of His children, created in His own image. 
Thus the law of causality is fully carried out in the 
doctrine of divine creation. The theistic world-view is 
the only rational and adequate one. Every other view is 
an attempt to get something out of nothing, or something 
of a higher quality out of something lower; all of which 
is a priori impossible and absurd, and lacks @ posteriori 
demonstration. 

The question may be raised: Why can we not prove 
the Bible to be true by the tests of sensuous perception 
and physical science? We reply: There may be wise 
design on God’s part in establishing the principle that 
spiritual things can be only spiritually discerned, that 
spiritual truths can be known only by “being born of 
the Spirit.” If the Bible and its spiritual truths could 
be known by physical tests and contacts, our holy re- 
ligion would be degraded to the level of sensational 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES 65 


psychology and the sensuous view of life. We would lose 
all appreciation of the higher and finer spiritual facts, 
contacts and experiences. God Himself would cater to 
earthy methods instead of lifting men out of the lower 
plane into the higher spiritual realm. The biblical 
method, therefore, saves men from the “groundling’’ 
view of life. 

4. Should the evolutionist still insist on our producing 
a concrete case of creation to-day, we would reply: 
Biblical believers do not hold that God is creating 
entities ex nihilo at the present time. In this dispensation 
He is sustaining and developing the cosmos which He 
originally created. And this, again, is precisely what the 
Bible teaches: ? ‘And the heavens and the earth were 
finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh 
day God finished the work which He had made; and He 
rested on the seventh day from all His work which He 
had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hal- 
lowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work 
which God had created and made.” 

That surely is explicit. The creative work was finished. 
Until the next era, God works otherwise—that is, as we 
see Him working to-day, by sustentation, development, 
and redemption, and not by creation. If He found it 
necessary at times in human history to intervene to rescue 
man from sin and peril, He would do that by redemp- 
tion, not by creation in the sense of bringing new entities 
into being. For example, in the beginning He created 
all the atoms, or electrons, or the universal ether; since 
then He has not created any additional material sub- 
stance, but has molded the created matter into various | 
forms such as best suit His purposes. The same is true 
of the many classes, genera, and species of vegetable 


* Gen. ii.1-3. 


66 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


and animal life. A like law obtains in the human realm. 
Having created the original human pair, and endued them 
with the power of procreation, He has, ever since, brought 
human beings into existence in the appointed way, the 
way with which we are acquainted. ‘This tallies with 
the Bible, which informs us that God commanded the 
original pair to “be fruitful and multiply.” Since the 
creation of the first human pair, the divinely appointed 
way of adding individuals to the race is that of natural 
procreation. 

So Christian people do not expect God to create any- 
thing outright in the present dispensation, because that 
would be contrary to the express teaching of the Bible. 
He is working in a different way now. Yet He must 
sometime have created all entities, or they never could 
have come into existence. 

With the evolutionist, however, the case is different. 
He believes that evolution is still the dominant law. 
He maintains that the same processes are regnant now 
that have always held sway. The very latest utterances 
of Osborn, Gregory and Free inform us that the same 
agelong struggle for existence and survival of the fittest 
is in the saddle to-day, and is bound to work out its 
invariable and inevitable results.* 

But if evolution is the sovereign law to-day, we have 
a right to ask for direct and positive proof of its work- 
ing. Everywhere it should be in evidence. We ought 
to have clear cases of spontaneous generation; for if it 
does not take place to-day, we may well ask, Why not? 
One would think that the present would be the most 
favorable time in the world’s history for living matter 


“See quotations from Osborn and Gregory in Chap. VI of this 
volume. For Free, see his article in Popular Science Monthly, March, 
1923. ‘ 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES = 67 


to evolve out of non-living matter, because the world, 
according to evolution, has now reached a very high point 
of development. The same is true of the transmutation 
of species. Now should be evolution’s golden moment, 
its “accepted time.” Yet it fails to improve its oppor- 
tunity. Instead of one species evolving into another, 
things are going on in the old Bible way—every species 
reproducing “after its kind.” Bluebirds hatch only 
bluebirds; flickers only flickers; chestnut-sided warblers 
only chestnut-sided warblers; and so on through the 
whole list. The only place where species improve and 
produce valuable varieties is where man’s cultural hand 
is extended; and then, as soon as he withholds his guiding 
intelligence, nature has so little regard for the evolu- 
tionist that she invariably harks back to the original and 
inferior wild type. 

The present would also be evolution’s golden age for 
developing apes and monkeys into men. Five hundred 
million years ago (Conklin) the forbears of these ani- 
mals and of man had a very poor chance to evolve into 
the humanoid or human status, because they had no 
human examples and no intelligent instructors. But the 
simian tribes of to-day might command the services of 
some of the professors of science in our universities to 
“teach their ideas how to shoot,” if they wanted their 
help. And yet they persist in remaining simians, and 
refuse to grow more human! Why do they not come to 
the rescue of evolution? They are missing their chance! 
They cannot even learn to make a fire, or to con the 
alphabet, much less to study the great and uplifting 
doctrine of evolution! 

On the other hand, the advocates of creation do not 
expect the animals to become human, because the Bible 
teaches expressly that they were not made for that pur- 


68 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


pose. They were made to serve man. By their very 
creation and design they were of a lower genus than man, 
who was to be their master. When Jehovah caused them 
to pass before Adam in order that he might name and 
classify them, not one of them was found to be a fit 
companion for him, This proves that he was different 
in kind from them. Therefore God made another being, 
woman, of the same genus as man, so that the pair might 
have a rational and spiritual affinity. And as soon as 
the man saw the woman, he recognized her as a rational 
being of the same order as himself—a kindred spirit. 

The conclusion to be drawn is that physical science 
has not the tools nor the data with which to solve the 
problem of origins; therefore, if this problem is to be 
solved, appeal must be made to sciences of a more com- 
petent order—sciences that will take all the facts into 
account: physical, psychical, ethical and spiritual. These 
sciences are called Christian Ethics and Christian The- 
ology, and are based on the empirical data of Christian 
experience, which knows Christ to be the Redeemer and 
the Bible to be His ordained guide-book for life, time 
and eternity, His Manual of Instruction in the way of 
truth and righteousness. 


Tue DoctTRINES OF CREATION AND REDEMPTION 


It is wrong, as is sometimes done, to play off the doc- 
trine of redemption against that of creation, by saying 
that the Bible has little to say of the latter and much to 
say of the former. Even if that were true, still the doc- 
trine of creation is explicitly taught in the Bible, and 
therefore it must be important in God’s sight, even if 
it is not the most outstanding doctrine. Since the Bible 
is God’s Book, would He have inspired some one to write 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES = 69 


the narrative of the creation if it is of negligible value? 
Besides, it stands to reason that creation must precede 
redemption, or there would be nothing to redeem. Yes, 
more; if the created moral being had not fallen into sin, 
there would have been no history of redemption to record 
and no doctrine of redemption to teach. All the doc- 
trines of the Bible are bound together; they form an 
organic system that cannot be torn asunder without 
serious damage to the whole. 

But what are the facts about the amount of biblical 
teaching accorded to creation? The person who asserts 
that all the Bible has to say about creation is contained 
in the first two chapters of Genesis, proves thereby that 
he has not studied the Bible carefully. In Young’s 
Analytical Concordance we find that the words “crea- 
tion,” “create” and “Creator” occur at least sixty-five 
times in the Bible. Of course, the word redemption and 
its allied terms also occur frequently, and for that we 
are thankful; for it surely is a great comfort to know 
that the creating God is also the redeeming God. The 
one doctrine complements the other. The fact is, if we 
desire to retain our Christian faith in its integrity, un- 
dimmed and undiminished, we must accept and uphold 
these three great cardinal doctrines: creation, preserva- 
tion and redemption. None of them would be possible 
without the other two, any more than a man could live 
without his lungs, his heart, and his brain. 

Let us note how continuously the doctrine of creation 
runs through the Bible. We need to touch only the high 
points. Citations will be made from later sources than 
Gen. i. and ii., to show how the subsequent revelations 
go back to and corroborate the earliest biblical narrative. 
Gen. v. 1: “In the day that God created man, in the 
likeness of God made He him; male and female created 


70 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, 
in the day when they were created.” Note the repetition, 
as if God wanted to put the matter so plainly and em- 
phatically that no one could ever misunderstand or 
pervert His meaning. Gen. vi. 7: “And Jehovah said, 
I will destroy man whom I have created,” etc. The 
Israelites were commanded to “remember the Sabbath 
day to keep it holy.” Why? Because “in six days 
Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in 
them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore 
Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Thus 
Exodus xx. 11 correlates with Gen. i. and ii. Read Deut. 
iv. 32: ‘Ask now of the days that are past, which were 
before thee, since the day that God created man upon the 
earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other,” 
etc. See how this verse connects Deuteronomy with 
Genesis in one historical narrative. It is akin to a ref- 
erence on the part of an American fourth of July speaker 
of to-day to the Declaration of Independence of 1776. 
Across the centuries runs the doctrine of creation. 
Note what Nehemiah says: “Thou art Jehovah, even 
thou alone: thou hast made heaven, the heaven of 
heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things 
that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them, and 
thou preservest them all.”> Here the last historical 
book of the Old Testament agrees with the first book on 
the doctrine of creation. Isaiah is rich in similar pas- 
sages: “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who 
created these things.” ® “I have made the earth, and 
created man upon it; I, even my hands have stretched out 
the heavens.” * In the following passages there are 
references to the garden of Eden, where, as Genesis tells 
us, some of the creative events took place: Isa. li. 3; 


* Neh. ix.6. *Tsa. x1.26. ‘Isa. xlv.12. 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES 71 


Ezek. xxviii. 13; xxxi. 8, and Joel ii. 3. Hear Isaiah: 
“For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the 
God that formed the earth and made it, that established 
it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be 
inhabited.” § 

The Psalmist has not overlooked the doctrine of crea- 
tion: ‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, 
and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth,” 
etc.2 “Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his 
help, whose hope is in the Lord his God, who made heaven 
and earth, the sea and all that therein is.’’1° Here is 
another key passage: ‘I will lift up mine eyes unto the 
hills, whence cometh my help; my help cometh from 
Jehovah, who made heaven and earth.” 14 

Neither have the New Testament writers overlooked 
the doctrine of creation, but have set it forth most ex- 
plicitly in connection with the doctrine of grace and 
redemption. Our Lord Himself says, ‘But in the begin- 
ning of the creation male and female made He them,” }” 
and in referring to Gen. i. 27: ‘‘For in those days shall 
be tribulation such as there hath not been the like from 
the beginning of the creation which God created until 
now, and never shall be.” 12 The apostle John, who so 
wonderfully portrays the Redeemer, thought it worth 
while to connect Him with the original creation: “All 
things were made through Him, and without Him was 
not anything made that hath been made.” ** So Paul 
speaks of “the invisible things of Him from the crea- 
tion;” +5 and also that “the whole creation groaneth and 
travaileth together until now.” + “By Him were all 
things created.” 17 “And have put on the new man, that 


* Isa. xlv.18. Mark. x.6. * Rom. i.20. 
° Ps. xxxiii.6-9. * Mark xiii.19. ** Rom. viii.22. 
Ps, cxlvi.5-6. Witnsi3: ™ Col. i16. 


2 Ps. cxxi.12. 


72 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of Him 
that created him.” 1® Paul speaks of the woman being 
made from the man, not the man from the woman, and 
uses the word “created,” 4° thus corroborating the doc- 
trine of the original creation of man and woman. Paul 
did not think it necessary to play off creation against re- 
demption, or the reverse, but upheld both doctrines, as 
every true biblical believer will do. In Heb. xi. 3 the 
writer says that “the worlds were framed by the word 
of God.” 

And what says the last book of the Bible, the Reve- 
lation of St. John? 2° “For thou didst create all things, 
and because of thy will they were, and were created.” 

As to the mode—the how—of divine creation, we do 
not presume to say, or even to venture a conjecture. No 
one knows how God could bring something into being 
that had no prior existence. That has not been revealed 
to mortal men, and we have no data upon which to base 
an assertion. We simply accept the doctrine of creatio 
ex nihilo, taught clearly in God’s Word, and leave the 
method and the details to the time when “we shall see 
face to face, and shall know even also as we have been 
known.” Some things must await the revelations of 
eternity. We hold that the doctrine of creation is pos- 
sible, because God is and must be omnipotent; reason- 
able, because He surely would want to make a universe 
which could have come into being only by an act of 
creation; and uplifting, because, if He created the uni- 
verse, He must be wise and powerful enough to uphold 
it and bring it to a worthy destiny. 


* Col. iii.to. * Consult Rev. iii.14, iv.11, x.6. 
*T Cor. xi.8, 9. 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES = 73 


CREATION OR EVOLUTION 


On the other hand, the theory that the universe evolved 
out of nothing is a priori absurd and impossible. The 
view that matter is eternal, and that it evolved into 
something higher and finer than itself by means of resi- 
dent forces is, on the face of it, utterly untenable, and 
in total contradiction to the law of causality. It is better, 
far and away better, to maintain a doctrine that is ade- 
quate to account for all phenomena, matter and force, 
science and philosophy, morals and religion—the doctrine 
of divine creation. 

In order to be as thoroughgoing as possible, another 
matter demands attention. “Do you mean to teach that 
God, during the creative period, created each species of 
plants and animals separately, and constituted each to 
procreate after its kind? Would not that have been a 
colossal miracle?” 

The skeptical scientist, we grant, has a right to raise 
that question, and it becomes the duty of the evangelical 
defender of the Bible to answer it frankly. Our reply 
is: That would, indeed, have been a great miracle—one 
that for a moment may almost stagger belief. However, 
it would have been no greater miracle than to create only 
one primordial germ, and endue it with sufficient fecund 
power to evolve from itself all the millions of different 
species of organisms now existing on the earth. Or sup- 
pose there were no God, what a marvel would it have 
been for nature herself—blind nature—to produce a liv- 
ing cell from dead matter, and then place within its 
nucleus all the potencies necessary to beget all the diverse 
forms of life and rational personalities now known in 


74 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


the world! Any way you look at the problem, it involves 
a tremendous marvel. But to our mind, it is far more 
reasonable to believe that an all-wise and all-powerful 
personal God performed such a wonder than that mere 
fortuity, or blind nature, or natural law or force per- 
formed it, : 

Now, if God created the material universe, He must 
have created each separate electron and atom. How else 
could it have come into existence? Surely God could 
not have created all the infinitesimal particles of matter 
en masse. ‘Try to think it through, and see how impos- 
sible that would have been. ‘Therefore each distinct 
particle must have been separately created. Or, if the 
physicist prefers a different mode of expression, God 
must have created separately each distinct “center of 
energy” in the mighty cosmos. If God could perform so 
colossal a miracle in the infinitesimal realm of material 
substance, it would have been easily within His power to 
create the germ-plasm of each of the several millions of 
species of organisms now inhabiting the earth. How- 
ever we may try to explain the universe and its origin, 
we are compelled to admit that supreme wonders must 
some time have been performed. 

Moreover, the biblical account of distinct creations 
agrees with what we see in the organic realm to-day; 
namely, each species breeding true to form. The same 
narrative also gives an adequate explanation of the 
fact that each germ-plasm reproduces after its kind in 
the midst of thousands of other germ-plasms of different 
kinds. At the beginning each germ was endued with its 
own idiosyncrasies. Each is and always has been swi 
generis. This very fact of stability and differentiation 


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND SPECIES 75 


of type makes scientific classification possible; for if 
nature were in a state of flux, one type merging gradu- 
ally into another, we could have no science of natural 
history. Science is “verified and classified knowledge.” 

A further thought is worthy of consideration. The 
theistic world-view is the only rational basis for science. 
If the world were not made by intelligence, it would 
not be intelligible. Plato elaborated that conception. 
He held that, since the cosmos can be interpreted by 
mind, it must be the product of mind. Otherwise the 
human mind could formulate no science. Also, if the 
world came only by chance, it would be a chaos, not a 
cosmos, for mere fortuity never could have produced an 
orderly world, a world whose entities are capable of 
scientific classification. We repeat for emphasis: If 
the world were not the product of an ordering mind, if 
it were a mere welter of things, science would be impos- 
sible. Hence we believe our proposition to be proved, 
that the theistic world-view is the only rational, scientific 
and philosophical one; hence, the only one that can be 
true. 


CHAPTER V 
THE REAL DAWN MAN 


Wuo Was He? Tue Great INTERROGATION 


Who was the being that stood at the dawn of human 
history looking out into the future with questioning 
gaze? What kind of a being was he? Was he created 
rational at the start? Or was he an ape-like creature of 
bestial lineage, just emerging into the status of human 
intelligence? Was he placed in a garden or evolved in a 
jungle? 


Is THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE HISTORICAL AND 
SCIENTIFIC? 


The purpose of this chapter will be to indicate whether 
the biblical account of the genesis of the human family 
is scientific, historical and rational, or the reverse. Per- 
haps we may be justified in saying at this point that, if 
the biblical narrative is true, it affords an adequate ex- 
planation of man, his personality, his ethical and spiritual 
nature. The word “adequate” is used advisedly in this 
context, because it seems impossible to believe that the 
non-personal could ever have evolved, by means of resi- 
dent forces, into the personal, the unconscious into the 
conscious, the non-sentient into the sentient, the non- 
moral and non-spiritual into the moral and the spiritual. 
The law of causality inheres as an axiom in the very 

76 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 7 


structure of the human mind. This law is that every 
effect and event must have an adequate cause; that a 
greater entity cannot come from a lesser, or a higher 
quality out of a lower; that nothing can rise higher than 
its source. 

Now, since personalities live in the world to-day, it 
is reasonable to believe that their ultimate cause must 
be a personality. Therefore, since the biblical narratives 
assign as the cause of man’s origin an all-wise and all- 
powerful personal God, we can at least safely assert 
that this account affords an adequate cause and explana- 
tion of all human phenomena, including the highest 
characteristics. Can reason accept the biblical account 
as true? is the question we shall attempt to answer in this 
chapter. 

According to the Scriptures, interpreted in the clear, 
honest, literal sense, the real dawn man and woman were 
brought into existence by a direct act of divine creation: 
“And God created man in His own image; in the image 
of God created He him; male and female created He 
them.” ! Then God immediately “blessed them,” and 
commanded them to be “fruitful, and multiply, and re- 
plenish the earth, and subdue it;” also to have dominion 
over the rest of the creation. The word for “create” is 
used three times in the twenty-seventh verse. It is bara 
in the Hebrew—the same word that is used in the first 
verse of the Bible, which says, “In the beginning God 
created [bara] the heavens and the earth.” To be con- 
sistent, if the word “create” in the first verse means to 
bring something new into existence, something that had 
no previous existence, it ought to carry the same meaning 
in the twenty-seventh verse, which recites the creation 
of man and woman. As a rule, the word bara, as used 


*Gen. i.27. 


78 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


in the Bible, means either the creation of an entity 
ex nihilo, or the initiation of some new force or condition 
that did not exist before. In the first chapter of the 
Bible, which deals with the beginning of all things, it 
is reasonable to believe that the writer meant by Jara 
the production of an entity that had no prior existence. 
Therefore, by a clear exegesis of the biblical language, we 
conclude that the writer meant to teach that the pro- 
genitors of Genus Homo were given their being by a 
direct act of divine creation. 


SoME LIGHT FROM BIBLICAL EXEGESIS 


At this point a matter of close exegesis arises. Some- 
times the question is raised: When the Genesiacal 
record says, “Let us make man in our image,” might not 
God have made him by the process of evolution? Also 
when it says, “And God created man in His own image,” 
would it not be exegetically valid to draw the same con- 
clusion? Our reply is as follows: The Hebrew word © 
for “‘make”’ in verse 26 is asah; the word for “create” in 
verse 27 is bara. ‘These verbs have a specific meaning; 
they mean to make something outright; they do not 
connote a growing, evolving or developing process. Had 
the inspired writer wanted to convey the idea of growth 
or development, he should have chosen the proper Hebrew 
verbs; of which there are quite a number. Here are 
some of the verbs he might and should have used if he 
meant to teach that man grew or was evolved: gadal 
(Gen. xxi. 8); dagah (Gen. xlviii. 16); yatsa (Job xxxi. 
40); tsamach (Gen. ii. 5), the last meaning in some 
places, ‘‘to cause to grow” (Ps. civ. 14). If the Holy 
Spirit is the ultimate author of this creative narrative, 
He should have led the writer to use the correct verbs 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 79 


to convey the idea of evolution, since He could have found 
many such verbs. Instead, however, He employed the 
verbs asah, to make, and bara, to create. More will be 
said on this point a little further on. 

The impression of a direct divine act of creation is 
deepened by the fact that God immediately spoke to the 
pair, giving them explicit injunctions? which surely 
connote that they were at once endued with rational 
intelligence—at all events, with sufficient mentality to 
understand God’s language. 

According to the second chapter of Genesis, comple- 
mentary to the first, man was made an ethical being 
from the start; for he was expressly forbidden to eat 
of the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil.” This certainly implies some perception and sense 
of moral distinctions. The various animals and birds 
were also brought before him to be named, which in- 
volved not a little intelligence. As Adam inspected and 
named all the animals, he made the discovery that not 
one of them was a suitable companion for him. “But 
for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.” 3 
Therefore another being, a woman, had to be formed, 
also in the divine image,* who would have true affinity 
with the man. In a clear and beautiful way, as clearly 
as language can make it, this unique narrative conveys 
to us the distinct impression that man was, and recog- 
nized himself to be, a being of a different and higher 
genus than the animals around him. He was unique, 
sui generis. The divine command to man to “dress” 
(cultivate) and to “keep” (preserve from reversion) the 
garden also implies an intelligence far above that of any 
known animal. 

The foregoing analysis, it must be acknowledged, can- 


* Gen. 128-30. * Gen. ii-xx. “Gen. i.27. 


80 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


not be made to coincide with the hypothesis of man’s 
animal pedigree. Nowhere in the Bible is there the 
remotest intimation of such a view. Throughout, man 
is treated as if he were a rational being, belonging to a 
higher order than the animals. Therefore to force the 
biblical language into teaching the evolutionary doctrine 
is not to interpret, but to gloss, the Bible. It is eisegesis, 
not exegesis, 

Sometimes the objection is raised that, had the bib- 
lical writer attempted to tell the story of man’s evolution 
from a brute stock, he would have had to use scientific 
and technical terminology that the vast majority of his 
readers could not have understood. That is an error, 
He would not have needed to use a single word that an 
intelligent child could not comprehend. Let us try the 
experiment and see. Had the writer meant to teach 
evolution, he might have put Gen. i. 26 in this simple 
way: “And God said, Let us cause one of the animals 
to grow (tsamach) into a man in our image, after our 
likeness.” Then verse 27 might have been phrased in 
this way: “And God caused one of the animals to grow 
into a man in His own image; in the image of God 
caused He him to grow; male and female caused He them 
to grow.” Or perhaps this would have been better: 
“And God caused one of the animals to bring forth man 
in His own image.” 

That language would have been primer-like enough 
for any one to understand. Moreover, if the Genesiac 
narrative is divinely inspired, and if evolution was God’s 
modus operandi, the truth should have been told. 

Other supposedly acute apothegms are these: “The 
Bible is not a textbook of science”; “The Bible was 
not intended to teach science.” 

We reply that if the Bible is God’s revelation, it surely 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 81 


was intended to teach whatever it does teach. There- 
fore, when it recites history, it must tell the truth. 
When it touches on the realm of science, as it frequently 
does, it must touch truly. The God of the Bible is rep- 
resented in the Bible as the God of the whole universe— 
of the natural as well as the spiritual realm. Biblical 
religion is of too wide a scope and too paramount a 
character to be set off in a corner. It touches life and 
experience at every point. 

Let it be admitted that the Bible is not a scientific 
textbook. There are many technical matters of science 
which God has wisely left man to discover for himself as 
a part of his mental, moral and spiritual discipline. But 
if the Bible is a divinely inspired book, it must tell the 
truth when it deals with matters of cosmogony and 
anthropology, as well as when it deals with other data. 
The critics who think they can go through the Bible and 
pick out its religious element, and separate it from the 
rest of its teaching, have an impossible task on their 
hands. They will inevitably shred its cloth of gold. 

Another aphorism (attributed to Galileo) is this: 
“The Bible is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, 
and not how the heavens go.” 

But that, too, is wrong and one-sided. It is a nar- 
rowing of the biblical teaching. The Bible tells us many 
things besides how to go to heaven. It teaches us how 
to live to the best purpose in this world. Real biblical 
Christians are practical. Their ethics are not mere 
“interim ethics,” as Albert Schweitzer would have us 
believe. They do not spend much of their time in day- 
dreams about “going to heaven,” but take an active part 
in the practical affairs of the present life. Biblical re- 
ligion is much broader than the religion of the dissecting 
critics who are enamored of evolution; for, as Paul puts 


82 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


it, it “has promise of the life that now is and of that which 
is to come.” It would be hard to conceive of a religion 
of vaster sweep and dimensions. 

After this excursus, we shall now return to the biblical 
narrative. While the first chapter of Genesis gives a 
general account of the creation of man and woman, the 
second chapter supplements it by presenting a more de- 
tailed and specific delineation of the method by which 
they were brought into being. It will be germane to 
examine these passages somewhat critically, especially to 
note their agreement with science and reason. A classical 
passage is: “And Jehovah Elohim formed man of the 
dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life; and man became a living soul.” ° Close 
exegesis will reveal some salient and interesting facts. 

The first part of the verse, of course, refers to man’s 
body, his physical organism. It is worth noting that 
the Hebrew word for ‘‘formed” is yatsar, which means 
to “form, frame, fashion.”® It is not the verb bara, 
which is used in Genesis i. 1 and 27, describing the crea- 
tion of the universe and of man. Evidently the biblical 
writer was inspired to choose his words with precision. 
Man’s body was not “created” (bara), but was “‘fash- 
ioned” (yatsar) from material already existing—“the 
dust of the ground.” * ‘This careful use of words is in- 
deed significant. Collating the whole biblical teaching, 
it leads to this conclusion—that God originally ‘“‘created”’ 
the primordial material,’ from which in course of time 
came the soil in the garden of Eden; and out of this soil 
man’s physical organism was subsequently ‘‘fashioned.” 
Hence it would have been an error on the writer’s part 


* Gen. ii7 (Am. Rev. Ver.). 
*See Roy’s Hebrew and English Dictionary. 
* Gen. ii.7. * Gen. i, 2. 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 83 


to use the verb bara in connection with the molding of 
man’s body, for its material or substance had already 
been created.® 

But in Genesis i. 27, the writer, in describing the mak- 
ing of man in the divine image, used the word “create” 
(bara). How is this discriminating use of words to be 
interpreted? At first blush it might seem to be a con- 
tradiction, the first chapter teaching that man was 
“created,” the second that he was “fashioned.” It is on 
points of this kind that the documentary theory of these 
early chapters, and, indeed, of the whole Pentateuch, has 
been based and wrought out. 

However, a more convincing interpretation may, we 
believe, be given. It is hardly probable that a writer 
who could teach such an exalted doctrine as the creation 
of the universe ex nihilo and of man in the divine image, 
would be guilty of such puerile inconsistency as flatly 
to contradict himself a few paragraphs further on in 
his narrative. All must agree that the majestic account 
of the creation in Genesis i. is far beyond any of the 
mythological accounts by other nations; for here we find 
pure monotheism and creation; there the grossest poly- 
theism, as well as many absurdities that no enlightened 
person to-day would think of accepting as historical.!° 
Even if another writer composed the narrative in the 
second chapter, it is not rational to think that he, or a 
redactor after him, would have put together two narra- 
tives in consecutive order which contained flat and evi- 
dent discrepancies. ‘They could never have expected 
their records to be accepted as true, if they failed to 
make them harmonious. At all events, it is reasonable 
to assume that the narrative is congruous and consistent 
until it has been certainly proven to be otherwise. 


* Gen. iz. * Barton, Archeology and the Bible, pp. 235 ff. 


84 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


THE CREATION OF MAN’s Sour 


What, then, is the best solution of our exegetical 
problem? Simply this: In the first chapter (verse 27) 
the writer meant to teach that man’s spiritual nature, his 
soul or mind, was “created” in the image of its Maker, 
who is portrayed in the Bible as a spiritual or psychical 
being. Christ Himself said, “God is a Spirit.” There- 
fore it was man’s mind that was created in the divine 
image. Psychically man is a finite replica of the infinite 
God. 

The Genesiacal narrative also uses the word “likeness” 
(demooth), pointing to man’s similarity to his Creator. 
In psychical substance and qualities man resembles God. 
God is psychical essence; so is man, so far as regards 
his soul or mind. God knows Himself, he is self- 
conscious, and can say “I.” So man, although, of course, 
only in a finite way. God has intellect, by which He 
cognizes and perceives; man likewise. God has emotion; 
so has man, God has will, He chooses; man has also 
the functioning power of choice and volition. : 

But the Bible nowhere attributes a physical organism 
like the human body to God. Of course, there are anthro- 
pomorphisms in the Bible, but all intelligent readers 
know how to interpret them. Therefore, when the bib- 
lical writer described the origin of man’s corporeal nature, 
he carefully refrained from using the word “create,” 
but used the word “fashioned,” or “molded.” Just as 
carefully did he avoid saying that man was “molded” 
in the divine image.1! He seemed to think that his 
readers would have sufficient discernment to see that he 
meant to teach, in the first chapter, that man’s psychical 
nature was created in the divine image, while, in the 


* Gen. i.27. 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 85 


second chapter, his body was formed from material that 
had already been created. In the latter case, no creation 
ex nihilo was necessary, because no new entity was 
brought into existence. 


Tue FASHIONING OF MAN’s Bopy 


The recital of the forming of man’s body from the 
dust (which means the finest material) of the ground 
seems to be based on scientific principles; for we know 
that, when a dead human body is analyzed by laboratory 
methods, it is found to be composed of precisely the 
same chemical constituents as the soil. Moreover, when 
the human body dies, it molders back to dust. The 
writer of Ecclesiastes says beautifully, ““The dust re- 
turneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth 
unto God who gave it.”” Thus there seems to be nothing 
incongruous or unseemly in the biblical narrative of the 
molding of man’s body from the dust of the ground. 
Man is constantly taking, more or less directly, the 
material of the soil as food into his physical make-up, 
assimilating it and converting it into muscle, nerve, blood, 
and brain. 

The word “dust” (Hebrew, aphar) does not mean the 
unclean dust of the street which is trampled under foot, 
nor does it mean a clod or a solid mass, ‘“‘but the finest 
part of the material of the earth.”1* Nor does it mean 
that man’s body was made from “mud”—a word that 
carries a repellent significance, and is applied to soil 
only when it has been thoroughly soaked with water and 
has become disagreeable to handle. When the fine tilth 
of your garden is dampened to a proper consistency for 
cultivation, you do not call it “mud,” nor do you find 

Keil, Commentary on the Pentateuch, I, p. 78. 


86 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


anything revolting about it. So the biblical writer used 
a refined word in this place, not a coarse and. repellent 
one. It should be remembered, too, that he had pre- 
viously said, “And God saw everything that He had 
made, and, behold, it was very good.” 1% Nor should 
it be forgotten that the soil was that of a garden, not of 
a swamp or a jungle. So the writer meant to convey the 
impression that the material used was clean soil, about 
which there existed nothing that was repugnant. 

At this point the question naturally arises, Was the 
framing of man’s corporeal organism a direct divine 
act or a long-drawn process? By reading the text 
carefully and interpreting it at its evident face value 
and intent, it does not seem to lend itself to the idea of 
an age-long process. The narrative is quick and concise, 
apparently indicating action of an immediate kind. Of 
course, a fraction of time seems to be connoted, but it 
is impossible, by any correct principles of exegesis, to 
draw out of it the idea that the writer had any conception 
of millions of years having been consumed in framing 
the human body. If that was the fact, and the writer 
knew it, just a few words would have made it clear; 
but no such hint is given. Whatever else we do or do 
not do, we must treat the Bible honestly. We must not 
force into its language our own subjective views. The 
fundamental hermeneutical principle is exegesis, not 
eisegesis. 

Let us now reread the terse passage and try to sense 
the impression which the writer sought to convey: “And 
Jehovah God formed man from the dust of the ground, 
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and 
man became a living soul.” What is the plain and simple 
meaning? It seems like direct, deliberate action, neither 


* Gen. i.31. 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 87 


hasty nor excited, nor long-drawn-out, Neither is there 
the slightest intimation here, or elsewhere in the Bible, 
that man’s body was evolved by a slow, age-consuming 
process from the bodies of lower animals. 

The reader is now referred back to a preceding para- 
graph, in which an exegesis of certain Hebrew words was 
given. In the passage now under consideration it is 
said that man’s body was “‘fashioned” (yatsar) from the 
dust of the ground.’* It is important to note that the 
verb yatsar is used. It means expressly to mold, frame, 
fashion. It does not mean to grow, unfold, or develop. 
As shown above, the writer might have used a number 
of Hebrew verbs to convey the idea of growth, had he 
desired to do so, such as gadal, dagah, rebah, sagah, 
tsamach. He might have even used the word yatsa, 
which means to grow. But he used the word yatsar, add- 
ing the letter r (Hebrew, Res), so careful and exact was 
his method. ‘This discriminating use of verbs in the 
biblical narrative is undeniably impressive. 


Was It A MECHANICAL PROCESS? 


Sometimes the allegation is made that the biblical 
method of bringing man into being is that of a mechanic, 
or carpenter, or sculptor. Nowadays many persons seem 
to be able to conceive of only the slow, organic method 
of the divine working. But that is restricting God to 
one method. He made the inorganic as well as the 
organic world. He made mechanics, carpenters, molders 
and sculptors, who make things, as well as plants and 
animals that grow. There surely is nothing dishonorable 
about the vocation of a skillful mechanic. The world 
needs mechanics just at it needs organic and growing 
things. If God made both, why should He not some- 


* Gen. ii.7. 


88 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


times be able to construct things outright and in a brief 
time, as well as cause them to germinate and develop 
gradually? Surely human mechanics could not have 
come into existence if their Maker were not a Mechanic 
—yes, a Master Mechanic. 


Dip Ir SHow WIspoM AND SKILL? 


Sometimes it is asserted that God would have shown 
more wisdom and skill had he spent many millennia in 
developing man from protoplasm or amoebae instead of 
forming him in a comparatively brief time. We reply 
by asking, Does it evince more skill for an automobile 
factory to turn out a completed, ready-to-run car every 
hour, or to spend two or three years in making one? 
Certainly, if God made man a completed rational and 
moral personality in a brief time, it was creditable to 
both His power and His wisdom. One cannot help won- 
dering, anyway, why God should have spent uncounted 
ages in evolving man,!° when He could just as easily have 
made him an intelligent personal being at once. Even in 
the organic realm God sometimes operates very rapidly; 
at other times He works more slowly. He is not re- 
stricted to one method. He is a God of diversity of 
operations, just as His cosmos is characterized by 
diversity and yet is a universe. 


THE CONJUNCTION OF SOUL AND Bopy 


An important question of exegesis must now receive 


“For example, Hendrik Van Loon, in his book, Ancient Man, says 
that it took man’s ancestors more than a million years “to learn to 
walk on their hind legs!” How tedious! Evolution does not seem to 
regard man as a very “progressive” being. That being so, one cannot 
help wondering how it occurs that men of the so-called “modern mind” 
have been able to make such marvelous “progress” within the last two 
or three decades. 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 89 


careful attention. Let us translate literally: ‘And 
Jehovah God fashioned man dust from the ground, and 
breathed into his nostrils the breath (nishmath) of lives 
(chy-yim), and man became a living (chy-ya) soul 
(nephesh, soul, or creature).” In Genesis i. 20, 21, 24, 
and 30 the same term (nephesh chy-ya) is applied to 
various kinds of living creatures. For example, in verse 
21 we read: ‘‘And God created ... every living crea- 
ture (nephesh chy-ya) that moveth, wherewith the water 
swarmed, after their kind.” 

What is the clear teaching of this passage? That the 
act of divine breathing into the body which had been 
previously formed caused man to become a living being 
like the organic, animate creatures around him. We are 
not reading our theology or our psychology into the 
sacred text, but are trying to interpret it literally. So 
far as the words and phrases of this verse lead us, they 
do not distinguish man in a special way from other living 
creatures, for the term “living soul” is applied to them 
as well as to him. 

Yet the biblical delineation is precisely what it should 
be in order to be factual and scientific. Man’s likeness 
to the organic life around him is indicated most beauti- 
fully by his being called a “living creature.” He had 
to be made in some respects like the animals around him, 
in order to fit into his natural environment. Had he been 
made entirely different, he would have been a misfit, an 
incongruity, an alien in the world. The biblical narrative 
itself teaches that he was to subsist on the same kind 
of food as that which was to nourish the animals.*® 
Therefore he must have similar digestive organs. Thus 
we see why there are such close skeletal, muscular, diges- 
tive, respiratory and circulatory homologies between man 


** Gen. 1.29, 30. 


go THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


- and his animal companions; they were created to live 
together in the same natural environment. 


MAN A UNIQUE AND DISTINCT GENUS 


Yet, while these are facts and must be duly weighed, 
the whole connotation and atmosphere of the biblical 
narrative proves that man was a unique and superior 
being, belonging to a different order or genus from the 
insects, birds and animals around him. Nothing is said 
of their having been made in the divine image. They 
are made by fiat. Man is formed by a special act of a 
most direct kind. From the start he is spoken to and 
dealt with as if he were a being of rational understand- 
ing. Therefore, combining Genesis i. 27 and ii. 7, we 
are led to conclude that God, in the act of breathing into 
man’s body the breath of life, also at the same moment 
created his mind in His own image and joined it with 
the living organism which He had formed. This inter- 
pretation makes the Genesiacal narrative harmonious 
throughout. Thus it is worthy to stand at the head of — 
the marvelous, integral system of truth set forth in the 
Bible. It also ascribes to man a noble and worthy 
origin, designates the exalted purpose of his creation, 
and suggests the immortal destiny for which he was in- 
tended. At the same time it keeps him in organic con- 
tact with the realm of nature, which is to be the arena of 
his activities. 

Man’s preéminence is also indicated by his being 
placed in a garden, thus giving him a suitable habitat 
in which to begin his career. His prerogatives are con- 
noted by his being bidden to eat freely of the fruit of 
the trees of the garden. His freedom and moral char- 
acter are evinced by his being forbidden to eat of the 


THE REAL DAWN MAN gt 


“tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” and by his 
implied ability to obey or disobey the command. He was 
also to ‘“‘dress and keep” the garden; he was not to be 
an idler. He was also commanded to name the animals 
as they passed before him; thus beginning the rudi- 
mentary work of scientific classification in natural history. 
Of course, it must not be supposed that his knowledge 
was encyclopedic. It was sufficient, however, to give him 
a good start, and a fair chance for the development of 
true character and the achievement of a divinely 
appointed destiny. 


THe ADVENT OF WoMAN 


Since man was created genetically different from the 
animals whom he had named, what could be done to give 
him true companionship and make possible the procrea- 
tion of the race—to enable him to carry out the command 
to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, 
and subdue it”? It would seem that the wise—one might 
say, the sensible—thing to do would be to create or 
fashion another being like himself. This might have 
been accomplished by directly creating another human 
soul, molding from the ground another human body 
(with the differentiation of sex), breathing into it the 
breath of life, and then bringing the pair together in 
conjugal relations. 

At first blush it would seem to be reasonable that this 
method should have been employed. But the Bible does 
not so teach. And why? Because then the human 
family would have had two distinct origins, and thus the 
organic unity of the race would have been precluded. 
A better way—a far better way—was selected. The 
solidarity of humankind must be established at the start. 


Q2 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Therefore the new human being, called woman, was taken 
from man, so that the divine act recorded in Genesis i. 27, 
“Male and female created He them,” was here wrought 
out in detail. Man is now Jsh, distinctly and exclusively 
masculine; while woman is /sshkah, distinctly and exclu- 
sively feminine; yet they are derived from the same 
stock; they grow from the root of the same human 
genealogical tree; so that, when the man awakes from 
his deep sleep, and looks upon the woman before him, 
he at once recognizes her kinship with himself, and ex- 
claims, “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my 
flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken 
out of Man.” ‘That psychical and somatic affinity for 
which he had previously sought in vain in the animal 
kingdom, he now perceives in the woman by direct 
intuition. Race solidarity and sex differentiation! Won- 
der of wonders!—both are achieved by one divine act. 
What science fails to explain, the Bible explicates most 
adequately. 

Let us stress this point. The differences between the 
sexes, so marked and wonderful, have ever been the 
despair of the naturalists. The sex organs have such 
definite characteristics and adaptations as to prove de- 
sign; they surely did not merely “happen.” Whatever 
else may be thought of the biblical account of the 
differentiation of sex in the human world, it at least 
affords an adequate solution of the problem. No one 
would be so bold as to deny that God could have so 
created the souls and so framed the bodies of the first 
pair as to adapt them to each other, and thereby enable 
them to beget offspring. 

A judicial and open-minded examination of the so- 
called “rib story” will prove that, so far from being 
absurd, it is sane and attractive. Much depends on one’s 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 93 


viewpoint. Much also depends on one’s mental temper 
and attitude. Of course, if one is obsessed by the sub- 
jective determination to rule out the supernatural, one 
might as well stop before he begins with the biblical 
narrative. But if one is willing to admit the possibility 
of supernatural acts, then our problem becomes compara- 
tively simple, for then one will admit that God is able 
to work in many ways, and should not be limited to but 
one modus operandi. 

Let us interpret constructively the biblical narrative, 
“And Jehovah God said, It is not good that man should 
be alone; I will make him a help meet for him”; 2” or, 
as the American Revision puts it in the margin, ‘‘answer- 
ing to him.” If evolution was the divine modus operandi, 
why would God have said that the man was “alone’’? 
Surely he could have found an animal which was a con- 
genial mate. But note the next step in the procedure. 
Then the various animals were brought before him to be 
named, and thereby to prove to him that none of them 
belonged to his peculiar genus, or were fitted to be real 
companions for him. At this strategic point, man’s need 
is God’s opportunity. God carries out his previously 
announced intention to make for man a congenial help- 
mate. 

How did He proceed? Surely in a most rational way— 
provided, as has been said, the presence and action of 
the supernatural are admitted. ‘And Jehovah God 
caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam.” Admitting that 
God is the primary Cause of all things, we may rea- 
sonably say that He is also ultimately the Creator of 
all opiates, of all skillful surgery, and of all human sur- 
geons themselves. Nowadays our surgeons, before per- 
forming a major operation, administer an anzsthetic. 


7 Gen. ii.18. 


94 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Would not the Creator of all things know how to per- 
form such a work, if in His wisdom it was necessary 
to carry forward His progressive purpose? ‘He that 
planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the 
eye, shall He not see?” 18 Says an acute observer on this 
very point, “Everything out of which something new is 
to spring, sinks first of all into such a sleep.”” Here God 
performed something in a miraculous way that He is ever 
doing in the natural and ordinary way. 

Next God made an incision in the man’s side, and 
“took one of his ribs.”” The word “rib” (Hebrew, ¢sala) 
does not have a specific meaning, and so cannot be said 
definitely to mean what we to-day understand by a rib. 
Dr. Keil (previously quoted) says that the singular form 
means side; therefore the closest translation of the 
original Hebrew is, ‘“He took one from his side parts.” 
The point that is clear is that woman was taken from 
man’s side, not from any other part of his body. To 
ridicule the “rib story” is, therefore, the mark of a 
captious spirit. It is possible to find greater depths in | 
this ancient recital than the superficial reader is likely 
to detect. Our interpretation is that God took of both 
the somatic and psychical seminal substance of the man, 
and from it He builded the woman, thus causing her to 
belong genetically to the Genus homo. So centuries later 
the apostle Paul said that God “hath made of one all 
nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.” +° 

Then God “closed up the flesh instead thereof.” That 
is precisely what the surgeon does to-day after an opera- 
tion, in order that nature may rebuild and repair the 
lost and injured section. The text says further: “And 
the rib (side portion) which Jehovah God had taken 
from the man, builded (Hebrew, banah) He into a 


* Ps. xciv.o. * Acts xvii.26. 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 95 


woman.” *° Again none of the verbs meaning to grow 
or develop are used here. True, this narrative describes 
a supernatural act; but it is neither an unnatural nor an 
inconceivable act for the God who has made the living 
cell and endued it with the power of dividing itself into 
two living cells. The divine Source and Author of all 
biological processes may well be accredited with the 
ability to perform a biological miracle wherever it may 
be required. 

That God took a portion from man’s side and from it 
formed the woman is beautifully significant, and connotes 
her equality with him. As Matthew Henry suggested 
long ago, God did not take her from the man’s head, 
that she might domineer over him; nor from his feet, 
that he might trample her down and tyrannize over her; 
but from his side, close to his heart, that she might be 
his loving equal and companion. On this crucial narra- 
tive of the Bible the institution of Christian monogamous 
marriage is founded. 

On the biblical narrative just analyzed Dr. Keil offers 
the following profound and relevant remarks: 


The woman was created, not of the dust of the 
earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was 
formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of 
life with the man, and the mode of her creation was 
to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance 
of marriage. As the moral idea of the unity of the 
human race required that man should not be created 
as a genus of plurality, so the moral relation of the 
two persons establishing the unity of the race re- 
quired that man should be created first, and then 
the woman from the body of man. By this the 


7 Am. Rev. Ver. 


96 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


priority and superiority of the man, and the depend- 
ence of the woman upon the man, are established 
as the ordinance of divine creation. ‘This ordinance 
forms the root of that tender love with which the 
man loves the woman as himself, and by which 
marriage becomes a type of the fellowship of love 
and life which exists between the Lord and His 
Church (Eph. vi. 6).?? 


Worth noting is the fact that, according to Gen. i. 27, 
God created the woman as well as the man in His own 
image. ‘Male and female created He them.” Thus He 
made them equal at the start. The woman is not de- 
picted as the man’s inferior. This is the exalted biblical 
teaching which is set forth in its very first chapter. 
When all the contemporaneous nations held degrading 
conceptions of woman as compared with man, and when 
most pagan nations even to-day give her an inferior 
place, how does it occur that this early Hebrew writer 
obtained so high a conception of woman? Divine guid- 
ance alone is the explanation of this unique fact. : 

It may be added that Christ Himself refers to these 
Genesis passages as historical verities, and bases the 
sacred ordinance of monogamous marriage upon them. 
It would appear that Christ and His great apostle might 
be regarded as competent authority on the historicity of 
the early biblical narratives.?? 


Tue BreticAL ACCOUNT REASONABLE AND UPLIFTING 


A few concluding reflections may be apropos. The 
biblical narrative of the origin of man, as has been 
™ Keil, Commentary on the Pentateuch, I, pp. 89, 90. 


Cf. Matt. xix.3-8; Mark x.2-9. Note also Paul’s teaching, I Cor. 
vi.16; Eph. v.31. 


THE REAL DAWN MAN 97 


shown, seems to be reasonable. [If it is true, it certainly 
offers an adequate explanation of Genus homo, with his 
high enduements of personality, self-consciousness, and 
moral and spiritual qualities. What other explanation 
that can be offered is adequate? If Adam, created in 
the divine image, was the true ‘dawn man,” we can see 
and feel that the human family had a noble origin, and 
that fact is of itself inspiring. It also follows logically 
that, if man were directly created in the image of God, 
he and his posterity must be superlatively precious in the 
sight of their Maker, who would fly to their rescue if 
they fell into error and trouble. Then, too, it is reason- 
able to infer that God made them for a worth while pur- 
pose, and will ultimately bring them to a destiny 
accordant with their personal and immortal qualities. 
Surely if all people would accept these teachings heartily, 
and live according to the ideals which they inculcate, 
civilization would not only be conserved, but would be 
rapidly advanced. 


PARENTS Exist BEFORE CHILDREN 


The objection has been raised that at present we never 
see mature men and women created outright; that all 
human beings are generated in the natural way—are 
born as babies, and slowly develop into maturity; there- 
fore, says the objector, the doctrine of creation is not 
based on empirical observation. 

The truth of this statement is frankly conceded. But 
we reply that neither do we see any of the lower animals 
developing into human beings, nor one distinct species 
merging into another, nor life spontaneously generating. 
So far as regards the last point, the biologists frankly 
admit that the enormous gap between organic and in- 


98 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


organic matter has grown wider by recent investigations 
rather than narrower. In evidence may be cited a 
recent book of a highly scientific character by five Yale 
University professors.?* 

As to the human genus, children are never brought 
into the world to-day save by the conjunction of two 
matured human beings, one male and the other female. 
Babies never beget babies. If babies had been made 
first, who would have taken care of them? It is reason- 
able to believe, therefore, that God started the human 
family by the creation and fashioning of an adult indi- 
vidual of each sex. This hypothesis affords an adequate 
solution of the problem of the genesis of the human 
race, and stamps man with qualities that are great and 
inspiring. 

Since we do not to-day witness spontaneous genera- 
tion, transmutation of species, and the development of 
animals into men, it is evident that something occurred 
some time in the remote past that was different from the 
process which we observe at the present time. We do 
not see anything originating ex nihilo to-day. Yet all 
finite things must have had an origin. The only suff- 
cient and satisfying solution of the problem of origins is 
divine creation. 

True science and philosophy always seek for causes 
that are adequate; hence they should seek for an adequate 
ultimate Cause of all finite things. Such a Cause is 
vividly set forth in the Sacred Scriptures of the Christian 
Church as the personal, eternal, all-wise, gracious, re- 
deeming God. 

*° The Evolution of the Earth and Its Inhabitants, pp. 82, 83, 89, 91, 
93, 94, 107. 


CHAPTER VI 
THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN 


AN INSPIRING DOCTRINE 


It is distinctly uplifting to learn from the Bible that 
God created man in His own image. The Bible story of 
man’s, creation, just as it stands in the first and second 
chapters of Genesis, is rational as well as inspiring, and 
agrees better than any other with Christian experience. 

And why do we say this? Because, if we know defi- 
nitely what was man’s origin, we can draw rational in- 
ductions and conclusions regarding his purpose in the 
present life and his future destiny. To put it briefly, 
origin, purpose, and destiny are linked together. If 
man’s origin is wrapped in obscurity, a like obscurity sur- 
rounds his purpose and his destiny. On the other 
hand, if we accept the biblical record of his origin as true, 
everything stands out clear and definite. If man was 
heaven-born, he must be heaven-tending. If God created | 
him in His own image, He evidently designed him for a 
great and noble purpose. Hence it is that those who 
believe in biblical teaching always have the highest esti- 
mate of the value of the human individual and the human 
race, On the other hand, those who reject the biblical 
account usually do not appraise man very highly, do not 
esteem him much above the brute, and especially do not 
think of him as eternally valuable in the sight of God. 
Some of them hold that nature does not care for the 

99 


100 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


individual, but seeks only to preserve and propagate the 
race. 

Now, what are some of the evidences that man was 
created in the divine image? One of them is this: Man 
is able to hold communion with God, to talk with Him, 
and to receive in his soul the assurance that God hears 
and answers his petitions. This is a fact of experience; 
as the learned men say, it is “empirical”; and that is 
the basis and viewpoint of all science to-day. If God 
and man were not similar, if they had no real kinship, 
there could be no fellowship between them. The plants 
and animals cannot know God and speak to Him, because 
there is no such similarity between them and their Maker 
as makes personal communion possible. Communion 
implies community of natures. 

Another cogent proof that man was made in the divine 
image is that when the divine Son of God came into 
the realm of time and space to redeem mankind, He 
assumed human nature; He ensphered Himself, as you 
might say, in human nature. Had there been no likeness 
between human nature and the divine nature, this would 
have been an abnormal and even a monstrous conjunc- 
tion. But if man was originally made in the divine 
image, the incarnation of the Son of God in human form 
was a congruous and normal act. While it was super- 
natural, it was not unnatural. 

Hence it is that great scholars and theologians like 
Dr. James Orr (now deceased) hold that God, foreknow- 
ing that man, as a free moral agent, would sin, created 
him in His own image, so that, in the fullness of time, 
the divine Son might be able to assume human nature. 
in a real and organic way, and yet do no violence to the © 
constitution of either the divine or the human nature. 

There is still another proof—and a conclusive one— 


THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN IOI 


that the biblical doctrine of man’s creation in the divine 
image is a true doctrine. It is the evidence of Christian 
experience. The Bible teaches that when a person is 
regenerated, the divine image within him has been 
restored. Note this statement: ‘The new man which is 
renewed unto knowledge after the image of Him that 
created him”; ! also: “‘Put on the new man, which after 
God hath been created in righteousness and true holi- 
ness”; or, according to the literal translation, ‘holiness 
of the truth.” 2 Can it be that, when the soul is con- 
verted and the divine image is restored, the soul does not 
know it? Would God regenerate a person and not im- 
part to him the knowledge of the divine work begotten 
within him? Nay, nay, we must not think so meanly 
of God. Paul says: “The Spirit Himself beareth wit- 
ness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” * 7 
If we are God’s children, we must have been made in 
His image, and by the Spirit’s witness within us we 
know it. 

When you visit a zodlogical garden, and look into the 
cages of apes, monkeys and chimpanzees, what kind of 
a reaction do you experience? Do you feel in your soul 
that you are a descendant of them, or that you have 
sprung from the same stock as they? Are you not rather 
revolted by the thought? But now turn to the Bible; 
read the first chapter of Genesis, that great narrative of 
the creation of the universe; read on to verses 26 and 
27: “And God said, Let us make man in our own image, 
after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the 
fish of the sea. . . . And God created man in His own 
image; in the image of God created He him.” Does not 
that appeal to the best that is in you? Does it not 
genuinely uplift you? Does not the statement there cor- 


* Col. iii.1o. ? Eph. iv.24. ®Rom. viii.16. 


102 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


respond with the experience of the divine image that has 
been recreated within you by the Holy Spirit? 


IN WHAT THE DIVINE IMAGE CONSISTS 


Stated in the simplest terms, the divine image means 
man’s likeness to his Maker. An image is a likeness. 
When you look into a mirror, you see an image of your- 
self. When you look at a photograph of yourself, whether 
large or small, you are looking at your image. If the 
picture does not resemble you, you say it is not your 
likeness. We say of a son, “He is the image of his 
father.” 

So man was originally created in the image of God. In 
certain important respects, therefore, man must be a 
finite replica of the infinite God. In what, then, does the 
divine image in man consist? 

Man is a dual being. He is composed of body and 
soul. We would not venture so far as to say that his 
body is formed in the divine image. We cannot speak 
definitely on this point, much less dogmatically, for we 
know nothing about the form of God. A Swedenborgian 
once told us that he and his school believe that God is 
an infinite man, and has the form of a man, even man’s 
physical form. However, we think that is giving too 
much rein to speculation. The Scriptures teach that God 
is a Spirit, and we know nothing of the form of spiritual 
substance. Our own minds, too, are of spiritual or 
psychical substance, but we know nothing of their form. 

What, then, are we warranted in saying about man’s 
physical organism in connection with the divine image? 
This much at least: When God determined to create 
the human soul (for “mind” and “soul” are terms that 
mean the same psychical entity), and to frame for it a 


THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN 103 


body for its dwelling place and organ, He formed the 
body in such a way as to make it a suitable habitation 
and instrument for its rational tenant. The mind and 
body were made compatible and complementary. There- 
fore, we are justified in saying that the human body has 
such correspondence with the being of God that nothing 
unnatural or incongruous was done when the Son of God 
assumed a human body and functioned through it while 
He dwelt here among men, and then bore it to the right 
hand of God to be glorified. We certainly can say that 
the human body as divinely fashioned in Eden was not 
out of harmony with the divine form and essence. 

However, it was specifically the mind of man that was 
created in the divine image. First, the psychical nature 
of man is composed of like substance with the being of 
God; for God is spiritual or psychical substance, and so 
is man’s mind or soul. They are not the same substance, 
but similar substance; + for man’s soul is a creation, 
not an emanation from God. Hence we may call this 
the essential image of God in man; namely, that man’s 
mental nature is of the same kind of essence as the being 
of God. 

However, man’s mind is not mere unformed or un- 
organized essence; it is essence constituted as a per- 
sonality. Man is self-conscious; he can say “I.” He can 
know himself and distinguish himself from other per- 
sonalities and other objects. The same is true of God; 
He is also a person, with self-consciousness and egoity. 

*In theological terminology we would say that the soul or mind of 
man in its relation to the essence of God is homoiousios, not homo- 
éusios—that is, of similar substance, not the same substance. Man’s 
soul is psychical substance, and is therefore similar to the being of God, 
but it is created substance, not a mere emanation from God, as the 
pantheists teach. However, in speaking of the divine nature of the 


Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the Trinity, we would use the term 
homodusios, the same substance. 


104 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


In this respect we are like Him, made in His image; but 
with this difference—He is infinite and we are finite. 

Again, the human mind has three great functioning 
powers—intellect, sensibility (emotion) and will. It 
knows or cognizes; it feels; it determines and moves 
itself. Here also man is: like God, who knows, feels 
and wills.. This second element of resemblance between 
man and God may be styled the psychical image. 

Once more, man’s mind or soul was not created with- 
out moral and spiritual quality; in other words, it was 
not created in an indifferent or a sinful state. It was 
created with what is known as “original righteousness.” 
As God is holy, so man was created holy. Nor was this 
holiness merely an accident or a superadded quality; it 
was inherent in the very nature and constitution of our 
first parents. It was concreated. This great attribute 
of man, as he came originally from the creative hand 
of God, might be called the moral and sfiritual image. 
It is in this sense that the terms ‘divine image” and 
“image of God,” are most frequently employed in the 
Holy Scriptures, in the confessions of the Church, and. 
in our Christian theologies. 

What has been said will not, we hope, be regarded as 
idle speculation. Whatever helps us to understand 
biblical teaching more clearly helps us to be better and 
happier Christians. If we are like God in so many 
ways, we certainly will be inspired to seek after more 
intimate communion with Him, for then we can see 
and feel how natural and reasonable such communion 
is; and, besides, if sin has come into our being and has 
disturbed, obscured, or entirely broken off that fellow- 
ship, we can see how divine grace may come to recreate 
us, and restore us to God’s favor, by repristinating the 
divine image within us. 


THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN 105 


At this point we may inquire regarding the effect of 
sin upon these various elements of the divine image in 
man. The essential image was in nowise destroyed by 
sin, because the substance of man’s soul still remains 
intact. The error of Flacius, that the essence of human 
nature became sin in the Fall, has always been rejected 
by the Church. If a building were burned down, we 
would say, in everyday language, that it was “destroyed”’; 
but we know that only its form was changed; that every 
atom and electron still remains without alteration. So 
with the essential image. 

Neither was the psychical image destroyed. But it was 
sadly marred, weakened, and corrupted. Man is still a 
self-conscious person since the fall, but how perverted 
that psychical power is! Man still knows, but how 
poorly and erroneously his intellect often functions! 
He still feels, but how greatly are his emotions corrupted! 
He still can choose, in some ways, but how wrong, feeble 
and perverse his volitions are! 

But the spiritual image has been totally lost. Thus 
man in the natural state is said to be “dead in trespasses 
and sins”; “the natural man receiveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God”; “the carnal mind is enmity against 
God”; “except one be born from above, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God.” Yes, the image of original righteousness 
is totally lost, so that no man, however gifted otherwise, 
can come to God and have fellowship with Him, until 
the Holy Spirit first comes to him, awakens, illumines 
and regenerates him. This is done by the Holy Spirit 
through the means of grace, which are the Word of God 
and the holy sacraments. God does not leave us to 
ourselves, however; by His call and illumination He 
initiates within us the work of grace. Hence He says 
to the man who is dead in sin, ““Awake, thou that sleepest, 


106 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


and arise from the dead, and Christ will give thee light.” 
He who created man in His own image is able and willing 
to restore that similitude which man by his own perversity 
has forfeited. 


THINKING ON THE HIGHER LEVELS 


An appeal is herewith made for thinking on a higher 
plane. Many people, we fear, keep their eyes too much 
on the ground, prone to evaluate everything in terms 
of materiality and animalism. Many of the scientific 
books and articles of the day are filled with disserta- 
tions on the lowest forms of life and the animal world. 
Physical parallels between man and the animals are set 
forth galore. Man has the same kind of skeleton, 
muscles, lungs, digestive organs and glands as many of 
the animals. 

While these physical resemblances exist, it is true, 
they are sadly overemphasized. Too many of our 
scientists are bent on looking down; they do not have 
the upward look, the higher vision. 

Even as we are writing this chapter, there comes to 
our desk an article reporting the conclusion of several 
learned scientists—eminent university men—that man 
has descended from the gorilla, because the big toe of 
that animal bears some resemblance to man’s big toe! 
The examination of the toes was most technical and 
painstaking. Some men seem to be engaged in pretty 
trivial business in order to prove their favorite theory of 
man’s brute pedigree! With them it appears to have 
become an obsession. We would simply ask how the 
gorilla’s foot should have been constructed in order to 
serve its particular purpose. | 

Again, is not the human foot admirably adapted to 


THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN — 107 


meet man’s need for balancing, walking and running? 
How could it have been better designed? Why can we 
not look higher, and see the purpose of God in all these 
wonderful animal and human structures? And as for 
their resemblance, they simply prove the unity of God’s 
plan; that He created them thus because He wanted a 
unified and orderly world instead of a chaotic one. 

We protest against the prevailing fashion of looking 
only or chiefly at the homologies existing between man 
and his animal neighbors, on the ground that that is the 
lowest and most materialistic view we can take. More- 
over, we must enter our caveat against the modern dis- 
position to measure men’s intellectual and moral caliber 
by the size of their brains. There are many people with 
comparatively small brains who have excellent minds 
and good hearts. On the other hand, there are many 
people who have large skulls and brains, and yet have 
small mental powers and bad moral character. So far 
as the writer can recall, the largest human head he ever 
saw contained a very inferior mind. In contrast to this 
fact, he knows a college professor who has a very small 
cranium, but there functions in and through it a most 
acute and cultured mind. Empirically judged, much 
more depends on the quality than on the quantity of a 
man’s cerebral material. It may be, too, that much 
more depends on the quality of the mind itself as a 
psychical entity than upon its material instrument. In 
this advanced age of the world we should not allow 
ourselves to become slaves to materialism. 

Our challenge is not for the denial of any established 
facts in science, but for a change of emphasis. Suppose 
we think of the many differences between men and ani- 
mals and give more attention to man’s higher qualities 
and powers. To differentiate well is a mark of clear 


108 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


thinking. Note how limited are the faculties of the 
animals in comparison with those of human beings. The 
best animals, long as many of them have been domesti- 
cated, cannot learn to con even the simple alphabet, nor 
to read a single line, nor to solve the simplest arithmetical 
problem, nor to use the simplest syllogism, nor to obtain 
the faintest conception of the universe, the purpose and 
destiny of man, nor of God, the Ultimate Reality. The 
difference is not that of continents; it is toto coelo—a 
difference of the whole heaven. Man is not merely an 
editio de luxe of the animal kingdom. He is in a class 
by himself, 

Then why not think on higher levels and in higher 
terms? Let us interpret man in the light of his creation 
in the divine image instead of in terms of the image of 
the sub-ape. Let our psychologists give more attention 
to man’s higher intellectual, moral, and spiritual facul- 
ties, instead of dwelling so much on mere brain organism, 
neurons, glands and molecular action. Suppose we try 
to rise to the Psalmist’s conception of the dignity of man — 
when he exclaimed, ‘Thou hast made him a little lower 
than God (Elohim). Let us look up, and not down! 
It will help us to be more noble; it will give us a loftier 
uplook and a wider outlook, and lead us to a higher 
conception of ourselves and our fellowmen. 


THe Proper APPRAISAL OF MAN 


A logical induction may be drawn from the foregoing 
considerations; an induction, too, of grave importance, 
having a most practical bearing on human life and 
civilization. According to Genesis i. 31, ““God saw every- 
thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.” 
The adverb “‘very” (meod), as has previously been said, 


THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN 109 


means supremely, superlatively. Therefore the creation 
as it came from God’s hand was perfect, without fault 
or flaw. This high appraisement of the divine handiwork 
comes after, and therefore includes, the creation of man. 
Thus man was pronounced “very good”—a statement 
that can hardly be construed to mean that he was a being 
of a low order just emerging from animalism, like the 
brutal being pictured by the sponsors of evolution.® 

If man was created directly in the divine similitude, it 
must follow logically that he was of supreme value in 
God’s sight. Every statement in the Genesis narrative 
connotes this, Created in the image of God, a sentient 
and reasonable being, his Maker certainly would care 
for him; and if he fell into sin and trouble, He would 
hasten to his rescue, just as would an earthly father in 
like circumstances. Thus created, man is a child of 
God. Then each one of us in whom the divine image 
has been restored through faith in Christ, may claim 
to be “‘the child of a King!” And this King is the King 
of kings and Lord of lords, the Sovereign of the universe! 
Furthermore, if man was created in the divine image, 
God would value him so highly as to regard it worth His 
while to send His eternally begotten Son into the world 
to rescue man and restore him to the divine favor and 
fellowship. And still more; it would follow rationally 
that God would prepare an eternal destiny for a sentient 
and rational being created in His own similitude. 

In this way the whole teaching of the Bible on the 
doctrine of man and his importance holds together; 

*For pictures of man’s primitive beastly status, according to evolu- 
tionary teaching, see McClure’s Magazine, March, 1923, in connection 
with an article by Hugh Weir, who reports “authoritative interviews” 
with Henry Fairfield Osborn and William King Gregory. An analysis 
of the article by Mr. Weir, “The Dawn Man,” will be found in the next 


chapter. See also the pictures accompanying Dr. E. E. Free’s article 
in Popular Science Monthly, March, 1923. 


110 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


everywhere the supreme value of man is emphasized. 
Divine unity in the doctrine of anthropology marks the 
picture drawn in Holy Writ. The Book is not a mass 
of disjecta membra. In its early chapters it describes 
Paradise founded and lost; in its last chapters it describes 
Paradise regained. 


MAN’s VALUE AND THE VAST UNIVERSE 


The biblical estimate of man’s importance differs from 
the pronouncements of some of the scientists of the day, 
who seek to shrivel us up with a sense of our extreme 
insignificance in the presence of the vastness of the physi- 
cal universe. They glory in informing us of its im- 
mensity in comparison with the littleness of man. They 
declare—and declare truly—that the sun is many times 
larger than the earth; that many of the stars are larger 
than our sun; that, indeed, the universe is so vast that 
our planet is like a mere mote in the air in comparison; 
that an individual man is of less significance than a single. 
grain of sand on all the seashores of the earth. Herbert 
Spencer, the arch-agnostic, ridiculed the Bible in this 
way: What do you think of a book, he asked, which tells 
us that the Inscrutable Power which is occupied with 
swinging the vast orbs of the universe through space on 
so tremendous a scale, came down here upon this tiny 
speck of an earth to converse with a Syrian shepherd? 
He meant Abraham. Scarcely more than two years ago 
an evolutionist made the following statement before a 
meeting of scientists: “Man is of far less importance than 
he thinks he is. He is nothing but an insect buzzing in 
the air for a moment, and living on a little planet, the 
earth, which will last only for an instant!” And no pro- 


THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN III 


test came from the assemblage at the time, and since then 
none has been heard! 

And what shall we say to these things? Shall we deny 
that the universe is so immense? No! We rather re- 
joice in its vastness; for the greater it is the greater God 
is—God whom we trust, serve, and worship. And the 
greater God is, the more competent is He to preserve and 
govern His universe as a whole and in all its parts. A 
God who can create and sustain so colossal a universe 
must be able to care for every part of it even to the 
smallest detail. And the more efficiently He can watch 
over and take an interest in its minutiz, and at the same 
time rule over it in its entirety, the greater a being He 
must be. So we rejoice as Christians in the immensity 
of God’s dominions, and are able to trust Him all the 
more; for so great a God surely must also be good, holy 
and merciful. 

Therefore we refuse to be intimidated in the presence 
of mere material bulk. Whether technically educated or 
not, Christian people have sufficient acuteness to distin- 
guish between quantity and quality; and with them qual- 
ity is by far the more essential element. This truth holds 
even in the material realm. Here is a huge boulder com- 
posed of common substance. It might be sold for a few 
pennies. Here is also a diamond, many times smaller, 
flashing from a hundred facets all the colors of the spec- 
trum; and yet, small as it is, it is worth thousands of 
dollars. What marks the difference in value? Quality! 
The boulder is common stone; the diamond is crystallized 
carbon. 

Let us apply the parable. Quantitatively a rational, 
immortal soul may not occupy large space, but qualita- 
tively it is of more value than any conceivable amount 
of mere insensate physical substance. 


112 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Man’s QUALITATIVE IMPORTANCE 


Let us indicate how much greater you as a rational 
being are than the material cosmos, before whose vast 
dimensions so many people stand in awe. You are a 
person; you have self-consciousness; you can say “I,” 
and you know what you mean. The universe is not a 
person; it is not self-conscious; it cannot say “7.” Again, 
you can cognize objects and persons other than yourself. 
You can apprehend the universe and many of its phe- 
nomena. The universe, however vast, cannot do that; 
it possesses no power of cognition or reason or other in- 
tellectual processes. Think of another contrast: You 
have feeling and emotion. You can love; love your wile, 
husband, children, parents, fellow men, God. What a 
great prerogative to be thus endowed! You can hope; 
you can aspire after high ideals. The universe can do 
none of these things; it is stirred by no emotions. 

As a rational soul, you have still another regal endue- 
ment—that of free will or volition. You can choose be- 
tween two paths; and what is more, you can choose 
between good and evil, right and wrong. What a royal 
gift! The sun, moon and planets cannot do that; neither 
can Arcturus, nor Sirius, nor the North Star, nor the Big 
Dipper, nor the Little Dipper, nor the Big Bear, nor the 
Little Bear, nor the Pleiades, nor all of them put together. 
They have no power of choice; they are mere mechanisms, 
moved by necessity. Thus you see that, qualitatively, 
you are greater than they, greater than the universe. 

Another proof of the same truth is the fact that, with 
your imagination—which might be defined as the stretch- 
ing power of the mind—you can extend your thought to 
the outermost rim of the universe, and then on beyond. 
It is true, you cannot think on and on to the end; but 


THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN 113 


you can think in terms larger than the universe. All of 
which is demonstrated proof that qualitatively you are 
greater than the material universe. 

There is no need, therefore, to belittle man; no need 
to try to shrink him up into atomic proportions. Created 
in the image of God, man has much that is intrinsically 
great about him. He is God’s most precious object and 
possession in all His vast cosmos. If you were walking 
along a country road, twirling a common pebble in your 
hand, and by accident it should drop into a mud-puddle 
by the wayside, you would hardly care to soil your hands 
and cuffs to recover it. On the other hand, if you were 
holding a valuable diamond in your hand, and should 
chance to drop it into a muddy pool, you would not hesi- 
tate to soil your hands and cuffs to rescue it. Let us 
apply the parable. Man is God’s choicest jewel in the 
creation, having been made in His own similitude, a 
sentient, self-conscious, rational being; and so, when he 
falls into sin and trouble, God feels that it is worth 
His while to send His only begotten Son into this sinful 
world of ours, and even to soil His heavenly garments 
thereby, being “made sin” for man, in order to rescue 
him, purify, and reburnish him, and make him fit for 
happy and eternal fellowship with his Maker. Is not this 
a high and holy doctrine? Is it not an uplifting truth? 


MAN A SINNER—UNWORTHY, BUT NOT WoRTHLESS 


It may be objected that man is a sinner, and therefore 
is not, after all, of much value in God’s sight. The 
Christian will not deny man’s sinfulness, but it does not 
follow from that fact that he is not precious in the divine 
estimation. On account of his sin, man may be un- 
worthy, but he is not worthless. ‘The diamond which falls 


114 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


into the muddy pool is not rendered worthless thereby. 
No; its intrinsic value is not in the least diminished. If 
you can recover it, you will wash away its soilure and re- 
burnish it until it glitters in its pristine luster, and then 
it may be even more precious to you than before, because 
“that which was lost has been found.” So with God’s 
diamond, the human soul; when recovered and restored, 
it may be only the more precious in His sight. 

We have now tried to delineate, according to the Holy 
Scriptures, the high evaluation that God places upon the 
human race and also upon the individual man. Jesus il- 
lustrates this truth by His three parables of lost things— 
the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son, the last being 
known as the parable of the Prodigal Son. How graphi- 
cally Jesus describes the shepherd seeking for his lost 
sheep, the woman’s search for her lost coin, the solicitude 
of the father for the return of his wayward son, and the 
glad welcome home at last! Then Jesus said: “Verily, 
verily I say unto you, There is joy in the presence of the 
angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” Recall, 
too, His blessing the little children, and saying, “Suffer 
the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, 
for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” This beautiful 
incident is all the more significant if we remember that 
it was the eternal Son of God, King of kings and Lord 
of lords, who took those children up in His arms and 
blessed them. It proves that He, the Eternal One, the 
only one really able to estimate eternal values, looked 
upon each little child as an immortal soul capable of a 
never-ending destiny. No wonder He said on another 
occasion, “Even so it is not the will of your Father in 
heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” 

It follows, therefore, from this discussion that we must 
not despise ourselves, even though quantitatively we are 


THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN II5 


proportionately so small and the universe so large. It is 
quality, not quantity, that counts for most in God’s 
kingdom. 


Wuy Gop CREATED so VAST A UNIVERSE 


Then why, it may be asked, did God make so vast a 
universe? The latest scientific calculation which we have 
seen informs us that the diameter of the cosmos is seven- 
teen trillion billion miles. Of course, no man can be 
sure that such calculations are correct. But we do not 
feel the least revulsion against the colossal figures just 
named, or the least trepidation in the face of them. Then 
why, we repeat, did God make so vast a universe? Our 
answer is: Because He had previously determined to 
create immortal beings like us men, and He graciously 
planned for them a vast and ample arena for their never- 
ending activities and development! Eternity is long; 
therefore God has provided and will provide endless di- 
versity and continual discovery and adventure in the 
destiny He has prepared for His children. Listen to His 
own words spoken through the inspired apostle: “Blessed 
be the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus 
Christ, who hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an 
inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth 
not away, reserved in heaven for us.” 

Well may we say, in view of these facts, that man was 
not made for the universe, but the universe for man. Be- 
tween death and the resurrection man’s soul or spirit, in 
the disembodied state, will exist in a purely spiritual 
realm in conscious and happy fellowship with God and 
the angels and the “spirits of just men made perfect”; 
then will come the judgment and the resurrection, when 


116 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


man’s risen body, now completely glorified, will be re- 
united with his redeemed soul; and at last man, in the 
totality of his being, will start forth in his unending career 
of possibility and glory in the infinite spiritual universe 
and the glorified material universe. When Paul ex- 
claimed, ‘‘All things are yours,” he was simply giving to 
the children of God a prophetic survey of their illimitable 
possessions. ‘The Spirit Himself beareth witness with 
our spirit that we are the children of God; and if children, 
then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, 
if so be that we suffer with Him that we may also be 
glorified together.” 


CHAPTER VII 
THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 


Was HE A REAL OR AN IMAGINARY BEING? 


An elaborate article, which appeared in a recent num- 
ber of a well-known literary magazine,' contained a dis- 
cussion of the problem of ‘“The Dawn Man,” according 
to the theory of evolution. The article, written by Mr. 
Hugh Weir in a sprightly manner, professed to be “an 
authorized interview” (see the sub-title) with Henry Fair- 
field Osborn, President of the American Museum of Nat- 
ural History, New York, and William King Gregory, 
Curator of the Department of Anatomy in that institution. 
Both of the scientists named are outspoken upholders of 
the evolution of the human family from the Primates— 
the original stock from which the monkeys, apes and men 
were developed. The article is copiously illustrated by 
Charles R. Knight, whose pictures are so arranged as to 
exhibit marked similarities between the skulls, skeletons 
and physiognomy of man and the simians. Primitive 
man is represented as a near-brute, a brother—or at least 
a cousin—to the anthropoid ape.? At this point it may 
be said that the entire article, in both the descriptive and 
the pictorial parts, is redolent of the den, the lair and the 

* McClure’s Magazine, March, 1923. 

*See picture on page 21 of the magazine noted above. Note also the 


portrait of primitive man in upper right-hand corner of page 31 of 
Popular Science Monthly, March, 1923. 


117 


118 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


jungle, but there is present in it none of the aroma of the 
garden of Eden. 

It may be well to analyze this production somewhat 
closely to discover whether its data are scientific, and 
whether the inferences drawn from certain facts are logi- 
cal conclusions or non sequiturs. Was the Dawn Man of 
the evolutionists a real being, or is he only a creature of 
their fertile imagination? 


MAn’s ORIGIN A RELIGIOUS QUESTION 


In the first place, it must be said that this article deal- 
ing with one of the most vital questions of all times, 
namely, the origin of man, is totally devoid of any reli- 
gious element. God is never mentioned; the supernat- 
ural, except in a casual way, is utterly disregarded; there 
is not the slightest intimation that man might have been 
made, fashioned or created in the divine image. So far 
as regards the witness of these deponents, man came up 
by purely natural processes of evolution from a bestial 


stock, and is therefore a cousin to the ape, whose image > 


and superscription he still continues to bear. Whether he 
bears in the slightest measure any resemblance to God— 
on that point, these devotees of evolution give not the 
vaguest hint. 

The demur may be made that Drs. Osborn and Greg- 
ory are pure scientists, who do not raise the religious 
question at all, but simply follow the leadings of nature; 
therefore their findings have nothing to do with religion 
and theology. But that is not sound reasoning. Any 
teaching that deals with the origin of man intrudes, 7pso 
facto, on the domain of religion. Why? Because the 
Christian Scriptures, received as true and divinely in- 
spired by millions of honest and intelligent people (and 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 119 


tax-paying citizens as well), present a lucid and definite 
account of the genesis of the human race, and declare 
that the progenitors of genus homo were directly created 
in the image of God. Therefore, when evolutionists give 
a different explanation of man’s origin, and never even so 
much as mention God in connection therewith, they run 
squarely athwart the sincere and earnest convictions of 
multitudes of Christian people. And whether they mean 
to do so or not, they are invading the territory of religion. 

But there are at least two places in this article where 
an evident intention to discredit the biblical recital of 
man’s origin appears. In the early part of the paper 
Mr. Weir makes the following statements: ‘Did modern 
man, as we know him to-day, come full formed into this 
world? Science calls the human race, as we see our- 
selves, homo sapiens, meaning the man that can think, 
reason, understand. Was this man a product of instan- 
taneous creation or of gradual evolution?” 

Here are two obvious references to the Genesitic ac- 
count of man’s creation. A little further on Mr. Weir 
says: “In order to obtain the most complete and accurate 
answers to these queries, they were carried to the Ameri- 
can Museum of Natural History, the institution that, 
under the direction of Henry Fairfield Osborn, ranks as 
one of the world’s leading authorities on the antiquity of 
the human race.” ‘The answer to Mr. Weir’s “queries” 
there received was that man was slowly evolved; that he 
was not instantaneously created. The question, there- 
fore, is extremely germane: Does evolution occupy a neu- 
tral attitude toward biblical teaching? Does it stay out 
of the realm of theology? 

Later on in the article, a direct quotation is given from 
Dr. Osborn, who said: “Man as we know him did not 


® Gen. i.27. 


120 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


come into the world overnight. He was not created 
instantly.” 

While this statement is a caricature and is satirical in 
tone, it certainly was meant to discount the biblical nar- 
rative of man’s creation. ‘Thus it is futile for any one 
to blind himself to the facts and go on believing that the 
theory of evolution as set forth by Osborn and his school 
does not join issue with biblical theology. Two methods 
—the biblical and the evolutionary—of accounting for the 
origin of komo sapiens will inevitably have to be com- 
pared, and if they clash, every one must see the conflict, 
and must make his choice. 


Tue SCIENTIFIC PHASE OF THE PROBLEM 


However, suppose we examine the arguments—rather, 
the zpse dixits—of Drs. Osborn and Gregory, as well as 
those of their reporter, Mr. Weir, to discover whether or 
not the theory of the evolution of man from a bestial 
stock has been empirically established. Are the data 
sound? Are the generalizations which are drawn from 
the scattered facts logical and conclusive? ‘These are. 
pivotal questions. 

Near the beginning of his article, Mr. Weir makes this 
statement: ‘Somewhere in the recesses of remote an-- 
tiquity the human race began. Just where or how is a 
matter largely of conjecture, theory, speculation.” 

If that is true—and, of course, it is—one cannot help 
wondering why the evolutionists assert so dogmatically 
that man is evolved from a simian or primate stock, and 
insist on the right to teach the doctrine as if it were 
scientifically demonstrated. 

Of one thing Dr. Osborn seems to be sure. Speaking 
of man’s pedigree, he says: “He certainly is not descended 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 121 


from any existing or known true monkey. Man has a 
long line of ancestry of his own, reaching perhaps two 
million years into the dim shadows of time. The growth 
of man through the ages was parallel to that of the family 
of apes and monkeys, but representing a stock absolutely 
separate and distinct.” 

This means that man’s remote ancestors were creatures 
still lower in the scale than the present-day apes and 
monkeys. Do the evolutionists imagine that this view 
makes their theory more palatable? Dr. Osborn 
continues : 


Man’s ancestors were undoubtedly monkey-like or 
ape-like creatures. But to assume that this admis- 
sion means that man is descended from, or is now 
only a changed form of, ape or monkey is to assume 
an absurdity. The common ancestors of homo 
sapiens and present-day apes and monkeys were 
mammals of the Primate stem. Ages ago, perhaps 
five million or more years, the Primates began, in 
the process of evolution, to split into groups, sepa- 
rate and distinct, which developed into the progeni- 
tors of man, the modern ape, and the modern 
monkey, 


The Primates themselves, Dr. Osborn holds, grew up 
from the same stem as the other mammals, but for some 
cause gradually grew away from them. ‘Then came some 


. strange families of monkeys, extinct now for 
hundreds of thousands of years. . . . These passed, 
while the main stem, still groping its way, gave forth 
the first of the anthropoid apes. Gradually yet an- 
other stock was set apart and diverged, a humanoid 
stock, consisting of what might aptly be termed ex- 


122 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


perimental or tentative man. While the ape stock 
was creating respectively the living orangs, the gib- 
bons, the chimpanzees, the gorillas, and some of 
their extinct ancestors, the first humanoid stock, 
distinguished by larger skulls and better brains, was 
making various experiments in the forerunners of 
modern man, | 


While the human race is thus “a definite product of 
evolution, an ascending evolution,” from these animal pre- 
decessors, yet Dr. Osborn assures us that “for at least 
a million years it [the human race] was distinct and apart 
from the purely animal stock.” 

At this juncture some remarks are pertinent. First, 
Dr. Osborn seems to be absolutely sure of what occurred 
“perhaps five million or more years” ago. We know of 
no dogmaticians of ancient or medieval times who spoke 
so positively of supposed events of so remote an age. 
They were quite modest in comparison. Second, the as- 
surance that men did not descend directly from the 
monkeys and apes of to-day affords no comfort, when in 
the same breath we are told that we must trace our lineage 
to animals still lower in the scale—that is, to sub- 
monkeys and pre-apes. ‘Third, the scientist’s description 
of primeval man, a beastly creature, “undoubtedly 
monkey-like or ape-like,” carries a very different spirit 
from that of the first and second chapters of Genesis, 
which tell us plainly that our progenitors were created in 
the divine image, were human and rational from the start, | 
pure and innocent, able to choose between good and evil 
and to understand their Maker’s commands, and intel- 
ligent enough to name the various kinds of animals; and 
that they had for their habitat a fruitful garden which 
they were to dress and keep. Who would presume to 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 123 


go so far as to assert that the jungle brute-man repre- 
sented by the evolutionists as pugnacious, vicious, and 
destructive, was created in the divine image? Who would 
be so adventurous as to try to identify such a creature 
with the first man of Genesis? 

Dr. Osborn may agree with some of his fellow scien- 
tists in asserting that man is not descended from any 
modern monkeys or apes, but not all evolutionists are of 
the same opinion. For example, Dr. Joseph McCabe 
says: 


We come of a remote animal ancestor. What 
was it like, and how and why did it become man? 
I have said that it is now customary to explain very 
carefully that our ancestor was not a monkey or an 
ape. I confess that I think this caution is overdone. 
It is a concession to the spiritual police. If we had 
the remains of man’s ancestors before us, they would 
almost certainly be classed as those of monkeys in 
the earlier stage and apes in the later. Possibly 
some of them are actually among existing fossils.* 


So the scientists are not agreed, after all, as to who 
was man’s primogenitor. 


WERE MAN’s ANCESTORS TREE FOLK? 


On another point Dr. Osborn fails to agree with what 
was once practically the consensus among evolutionists. 
He says: “Our ancestors or predecessors lived among the 
forests. Undoubtedly most of their time was spent on 
the ground. The trees, however, offered refuge from 
storm and danger, and the human brain was quick to see 
such an advantage.” Elsewhere he says: “It must be 

*The A BC of Evolution, pp. 107, 108. 


124 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


emphasized that the prehistoric man did not live in 
trees like the ape and monkeys, and that he walked 
Serecuy 

But for many years we have been assured that man’s 
ancestor was an arboreal creature, with a long tail and 
a hairy body, swinging about in the trees in company with 
his simian relatives. Jack London’s remarkable story, 
Before Adam, was based on this once-sure conclusion of 
the scientists. Only a short time ago a scientist declared 
that young babies are able to wag their big toes—a sure 
proof, he asserted, that mankind has descended from 
animals which once clambered agilely about in the trees. 
The same conclusion was drawn from the fact that, when 
modern men dream of falling, they always wake up before 
they reach the ground; the reason being that their paleo- 
lithic predecessors who fell from their arboreal perches 
clear to the ground never lived to tell the story and to 
transmit it to their posterity; while those who caught 
themselves in time survived to tell the tale. 

It must be admitted that prehistoric man, if Dr. Os- 
born is correct, did not act as intelligently as did the 
simians. He should have continued to cultivate the fine 
art of tree-climbing, because the trees would always have 
“offered refuge from storm and danger.” Yet Dr. Os- 
born says that ‘the human brain was quick to see such 
an advantage.” But somehow, man failed to improve his 
chances, while the monkeys acted more wisely. What 
an advantage it would have been many times in the course 
of human events, if, in the presence of angry dogs, raven- 
ous wolves, wild hogs and mad bulls, man had been an 
expert tree-climber! It seems a pity that he decided to 
become a hopeless groundling! But in this case, what 
becomes of the claim of the evolutionist—that man’s su- 
perior brain gave him a decided advantage over his ani- 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 125 


mal associates in the forests primeval? Is evolution con- 
sistent with itself? 


Tue MEAGER Fossit REMAINS 


Our scientists try to explain the difficulty of tracing 
man’s evolution by means of “unbroken chains of fossil 
evidence’”—that is, why the human fossil remains are 
sO meager in comparison with the fossils of other crea- 
tures of the geological ages. It is because the others 
lived on the plains, “where the elements had a better 
chance to preserve their bones for posterity”; whereas the 
Primates—the ‘‘dawn” folk and their kin—dwelt in the 
forests. “This fact, together with the absence of any 
definite form of burial, made the fossil remains of pre- 
historic man exceedingly rare,” avers Dr. Osborn. “Upon 
death the humic acid of the forest leaves hastened the 
decay of man’s ancestors.” 

But if the fossil remains of prehistoric man are “ex- 
ceedingly rare,” how can the scientists be sure that they 
have found the missing links and have proved evolution 
by actual data? Those missing fossils are precisely the 
materials needed to establish the theory of evolution on 
a solid scientific basis, and if they have not been found, 
scientists have no right to assume that they ever existed. 
Here is a proposition that ought to appeal to the scientific 
mind: If evolution is the dominant law in nature, there 
ought to be abundant and unmistakable evidence of it 
everywhere. The Founder of that law should have seen 
to it that the fossiliferous proofs of it were not destroyed. 
He ought not to have left it to conjecture and imagina- 
tion to supply these evidences. Moreover, if evolution is 
the regnant principle in nature, we should see clear proof 


126 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


of it to-day by demonstrations before our eyes of both 
spontaneous generation and transmutation of species. 
How does it occur that, instead of a prevailing law of 
fluent and gradually merging types, we find everywhere 
to-day the laws of biogenesis (life only from antecedent 
life) and stability of type (every species reproducing 
“after its kind’)? If ‘evolution ever heid the ruling 
position, why did it resign in favor of a principle that is 
precisely its antithesis? These questions deserve earnest 
consideration. 


Tue Aper’s FAILURE TO MAKE PROGRESS 
An interesting subject discussed in Mr. Weir’s article 
is “the ape’s failure to keep up.” We are glad he does 
not wholly evade that problem, for almost every school- 
boy will pose it. 
What is behind the mystery of men’s rapid devel- 


opment, while the ape and monkey, of the same 4 


stock, are still animal? What was the spark that, 
some fifteen hundred thousand years ago, sent the 
humanoid branch of the Primate stock on a path of 
glory to an ultimate position “a little lower than the 
angels”? 


Mr. Weir pries still further into the subject: 


Science answers “Evolution,” or “Adaptation,” or 
“Natural Selection.” But the layman, pressing his 


whys and hows, seeks more of the secret. The ape, 


he knows, has toiled along the long path of evolu- 
tion together with man; yet to-day the ape cannot 
speak, cannot form the simplest rude instrument. 
Man’s remote ancestors, hundreds of thousands of 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 127 


years ago, formed rude instruments and spoke to one 
another. What, then, was the cause of man’s devel- 
opment [and of] the ape’s failure to keep step? 


These were the crucial questions that Mr. Weir put 
to his mentors. What was the answer? That God de- 
signed and created man to be a rational being of a higher 
order and a different genus from the animals around him? 
No, indeed! “Glands!” said Dr. Gregory. ... “It is 
safe to assume that the action of glandular secretions in 
the humanoid stock, particularly the pituitary gland, was 
responsible for the rapid brain development and struc- 
tural changes, the erect posture, shorter teeth, speech, and 
other characteristics that distinguish man from the ape.” 

And then Mr Weir, seemingly satisfied with this re- 
joinder, lost his acumen and interrogatory mental frame, 
and forgot to ask how and why man came to have such a 
superior glandular outfit! How did he come by it, while 
none of the apes, baboons and gibbons around him ever 
got it? Something unusual must have occurred to start 
the humanoid branch of the Primate family on the gland 
highway. Does any logical thinker believe for a moment 
that Dr. Gregory gives an adequate explanation of why 
the ape lagged behind, while man forged ahead? 

Here is a simple question: If the animal parents of 
the first humanoid creature had no ductless glands, thy- 
roid and pituitary, how did he, their offspring, come by 
them? Could they have evolved out of nothing? Did 
the remote brute-man get these valuable acquisitions by 
accident? If one would dare to introduce a personal God 
at that strategic point in man’s development, one would, 
at least, be ascribing the result to an adequate cause. 
However, in that case an act of creation would have taken 
place. Yes, the birth of a kind of gland different from 


128 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


any that existed previously would have required an act 
of creation. 

Now, if God entered at any point into the process with 
creative power, whether man welcomed Him or not, it is 
much more reasonable to believe that He created man 
outright in His own image, as the Bible teaches, rather 
than that he dragged him up from the slime through 
polyps, mollusks, worms, reptiles, birds, filthy and raven- 
ous beasts, and consumed zons on eons in doing so. If 
it be admitted that there is a God—and most people 
seem to be willing to admit it—the biblical way of pro- 
ducing man seems to be more reasonable and attractive. 
It hardly seems to be plausible that He would have 
evolved man by an age-long process from a bestial 
stock. One cannot help wondering, at all events, why 
He would have selected so tedious and roundabout a 
method. 


THE Dawn MAN oF PILTDOWN 


We shall point out some other weak places—what 
might be called drop-stitches—in the logical processes of 
the devotees of evolution. Dr. Osborn thinks that the 
most important discovery relating to the origin of man 
is the finding of the remains of the so-called ‘““Dawn Man 
of Piltdown.” > It may not be important, but we are 
seriously impressed with the meagerness and uncertainty 
of the data. Here is an admission that affords little en- 
couragement for the belief that evolution has been em- 
pirically established. ‘‘When we remember that an en- 
tire century of exploration in all parts of the globe for 
remains of prehistoric man has yielded us only five spe- | 
cies, nearly or remotely related to modern man, the diffi- | 


° Eoanthropus. 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 129 


culty of locating fossils of any scientific value will be 
understood.” It would seem, then, that evolutionists 
ought not to speak with so much assurance on the subject. 

Regarding the evidential value of the Piltdown Man, 
the following facts should be noted: The first find oc- 
curred in 1911, and consisted of a “part of a fossilized 
skull bone.” Afterward were found ‘a portion of the 
jaw-bone, several important parts of the skull, three teeth, 
and the remains of several flint instruments.” Dr. Os- 
born admits that this was “a slender result.” In 1917, 
about two miles from the first discovery, the following 
remains were found: “a first lower molar tooth, a bit of 
bone of the forehead near the right eyebrow, and the 
middle part of the occipital bone of the skull.” When 
these were “placed side by side with the corresponding 
fossils of the first discovery, they agreed precisely.”” Now 
“there was not the shadow of a doubt,” for the two grind- 
ing teeth differed only in age, showing that the owner 
of the first was considerably older than the owner of the 
second. 

But the evidence is not quite so convincing as it ap- 
pears; for Dr. Gregory afterward says that the question 
of the size of the brain is a moot one among scientists. 


Unfortunately several pieces of critical importance 
are missing from the middle of the skull top [he 
says|. This has made possible markedly different 
opinions of experts. If the pieces of the skull are 
placed close together, the brain would be a very small 
one, estimated at about 1,070 cubic centimeters. If 
these same pieces are tilted upward and moved far- 
ther apart, the brain capacity would be as large as 
that of modern man, nearly 1,500 cubic centimeters. 
The revised estimate of Elliot Smith and others 


130 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


places the brain size somewhat below 1,300 cubic 
centimeters. 


Thus we see what an air of uncertainty surrounds this 
‘most important discovery.” Just a slight tilt or manipu- 
lation of the skull pieces would give us a man with a 
modern cranial capacity. The latest decision is only an 
“estimate,” which means a guess. And what a strange 
result was the combination of these meager fossil remains! 
Dr. Gregory says that it “was unexpected and in a way 
unprecedented.” The greater part of the head, he says, 
is distinctly human in character, although of a low type, 
while the lower jaw and the dentition are prevailingly 
simian or ape-like. Thus we have a mongrel, with a head 
like a man and a jaw like an ape. 

What is there to prevent our believing that the skull 
pieces belonged to a man, while the teeth and jawbone 
belonged to a member of the simian tribe? Nothing 
whatever. Professor Gerrit S. Miller, of the United 
States National Museum, a scientist who had ample ma- 
terial for comparison, declared that “the jaw and tooth 
belong to a fossil chimpanzee.” Our quotation is from 
Professor Ales Hrdlicka, another well-known scientist, 
who agrees with Professor Miller’s statement. Professor 
Hrdlicka also asserts that “none of the conclusions re- 
garding the Piltdown Man should be accepted, and that 
all hypotheses relating to it must be regarded as more or 
less premature.’ A German anatomist, Professor G. 
Schwalbe, who is often quoted as an authority by Dr. © 
Osborn, declared that “the proper restoration of the Pilt- — 
down fragments would make them belong, not to any pre- — 
ceding stage of man, but to a well-developed, good-sized 
homo sapiens, the true man of to-day.” The well-known 
scientist, Sir Ray Lancaster, also asserted, that the jaw 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 131 


and skull of the so-called Piltdown Man never belonged 
to the same creature. 

More damaging testimony of the same kind regarding 
Eoanthropus might be given, but it is unnecessary. 

Moreover, we have looked critically again and again at 
the photo of the “restored” Dawn Man, as he appears 
in the American Museum of Natural History, and must 
confess that he looks very much like a human being (of a 
somewhat coarse type) and very little like an ape. Com- 
pare him with the “restoration” of the Trinil Man by his 
side. He has even a more human aspect than the Nean- 
derthal Man, who is supposed to be the next higher prod- 
uct of human evolution. His jaw protrudes a little more, 
but his other features are finer and more prepossessing. 
It is due to add here that Professor Arthur Keith, curator 
of the Royal College of Surgeons, London, held that 
the Piltdown Man’s cranial capacity was about 1,500 
cubic centimeters instead of only 1,070; while Professor 
W. Boyd Dawkins contended that the remains of the 
Piltdown gravel beds belonged to the Pleistocene and 
later periods and not to the earlier Pliocene, as was 
first proclaimed in order to give Eoanthropus a greater 
antiquity. 

Now, in view of all these differences of opinion among 
eminent scientists, was it quite right and frank for Drs. 
Osborn and Gregory to assert in such a categorical tone 
that the Piltdown Man was one of the missing links in 
human evolution from a pre-ape and sub-monkey stock? 
It would, at least, have been aboveboard to state that 
some capable scientists have given a different interpreta- 
tion of the Piltdown data. 

The same dubiety might be shown to surround the 
Trinil Man (the Ape Man of Java), the Heidelberg Man 
(“reconstructed” from a single bone), the Neanderthal 


132 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Man, and the Oligocene Man of Egypt (restored, accord- 
ing to Osborn, from ‘‘a small fossil jaw”). 


CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE HUMANOID PEOPLE 


But let us next consider the status of the Dawn Man 
and his successors. Of the Piltdown Man, Dr. Osborn 
says: “Brute strength undoubtedly ruled him, as with 
the animals. It was a case of the survival of the fittest— 
every individual for himself. . . . His must have been a 
constant fight for life, not only against the elements, but 
against the animals—the extinct cave bear, the cave lion, 
the cave hyena, the woolly rhinoceros, and the mammoth 
—all, like himself, extinct.” 

It is evident, then, that the Dawn Men of the evolu- 
tionists bore no resemblance to the first Man of the 
Bible, who was created in the divine image; nor was their 
environment in any way similar to his. Thus the two 
accounts—that of the Bible and that of evolution—seem 
to be irreconcilable. 

The status of succeeding humanoid folk was little bet- 
ter. Says Dr, Osborn: ‘We can picture a continual war- 
fare between the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals, the 
latter fighting a hopeless battle for their very existence 
against a foe with larger and more active brain. .. . It 
was a case always.of the complete extermination of the 
weak by the strong. The law of the survival of the fittest 
is not a theory, but a fact.” 

Again it is plain that neither the Neanderthal nor the 
Cro-Magnon species can be identified with the Genesiac 
Man created in the divine image. 

But is this brute law of struggle and extermination still 
operative? Referring to such folk as the aborigines of 
Australia, Dr. Gregory speaks frankly: “The fate of 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 133 


such inferior people is sealed. ‘They will be wiped out 
just as surely, just as relentlessly, though perhaps in a 
more humane and less primitive fashion, as the Cro- 
Magnon exterminated the Neanderthal. The law of the 
survival of the fittest operates still.” 

Let it be noted that the law of the jungle is, accord- 
ing to high authorities on evolution, still in the saddle; 
it is still the regnant principle. Suppose that such con- 
ceptions should some time prevail among all people 
throughout the world, what would be their influence on 
civilization? Instead of sending missionaries and teach- 
ers to pagan peoples, the policy of evolution would be to 
duplicate the Hun-like savagery and brutality of the Cro- 
Magnon race! It is little wonder that many good people 
shrink from the logical outcome of such teaching. Let it 
be remembered that a leading evolutionist in a dominant 
position in our country has just declared: ‘“The fate of 
such inferior people is sealed. . . . The law of the sur- 
vival of the fittest operates still.”” Would Nietzsche have 
expressed himself with more brutal frankness? 


SoME UNWARRANTED INFERENCES FROM FOSSILS 


Are the evolutionists consistent in their reasoning? 
Have they mastered the rules of logical praxis? Let us 
see. ‘The immediate predecessors of modern man,” says 
Dr. Osborn, ‘‘were the race known as the Cro-Magnon, 
which made its appearance in Europe during the Upper 
Paleolithic age geologically, or from 15,000 to 20,000 
B.C.” Before this the Neanderthal race was supreme. 
Now note what Dr. Osborn says: “The Cro-Magnons, 
appearing suddenly among these creatures (the Neander- 
thals), came from the south, probably from the region 
of the Mediterranean. They were the nearest approach 


134 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


to man yet evolved.” Then they made ruthless warfare 
on the Neanderthal race, and destroyed them root and 
branch. 

From this description it is evident that the Cro-Magnon 
tribe did not evolve from the next lower type, the Nean- 
derthal tribe. Surely they would not have turned upon 
and ruthlessly destroyed their own forebears. Then 
from what stock did they come? Who were their pre- 
decessors? ‘They appeared “suddenly” among the poor 
Neanderthals, and began the work of Schrecklichkeit. 
Yet in the pictures of the “reconstructed” men, the Nean- 
derthal Man immediately precedes the Cro-Magnon Man, 
giving the impression that they represent a gradual evo- 
lution and a genetic relationship. However, in another 
picture or diagram ° the Heidelberg and Neanderthal men 
are represented as offshoots from the main humanoid 
stem, while the Piltdown Man immediately precedes the 
Cro-Magnon representative. But note this: The Pilt- 
down fragments were found in England; the Cro-Magnons 
came “probably” from “the region of the Mediterranean.” 
The Heidelberg and Neanderthal men are represented in 
this diagram as being the descendants of Pithecanthropus 
erectus (the Trinil Man); yet the fossil remains of the 
first two were found in central Europe, while those of 
the last were discovered in far-off Java! Thus, it would 
appear, the evolutionists are hard pressed, in both their 
logic and their natural history, to establish the missing 
link, 

The diagram previously referred to is a marvel of in- 


genuity. It represents, on a graduated scale, “the ascent — 


of man” from an animal far down in the Cretaceous Pe- 
riod up to the finest and most cultured looking recent 
Caucasian gentleman. Almost any one can see that it is 


*See page 22 of the above-named magazine. 


THE DAWN MAN OF EVOLUTION 135 


a “framed up” scale. No such gradient scale has ever 
been observed by scientists. In not an instance has it 
been proved by empirical observation that one species has 
been transmuted into the next higher. In the world of 
nature to-day, right before our eyes, we have all the 
various types and grades of animals here set forth, but 
in every case each reproduces “after its kind.” We see 
no evidence of one kind merging into another. What 
proof can be adduced that nature ever operated in a 
method different from that which we know to-day? 

Our champions of evolution declare that “the ape or 
monkey can never become a man.” “The evolution of 
the apes to-day is away from rather than toward man.” 
The gorilla is devoluting instead of evoluting. And why 
is this so? “The trouble with the apes and monkeys 
was that they were not progressive.” Yes, that explains 
it! And a profound and adequate explanation it is! 
Why did not the world figure out so obvious a solution 
of the problem long ago? While man was moving for- 
ward and upward through the ages, “the monkeys and 
apes took a conservative course.” In this way the learned 
scientists of the day cut the Gordian knot! Only, it 
must be added, “it might have been the action of glands” 
that caused man to forge ahead of his simian confreres! 
Here we may rest our case. It would create confusion 
and embarrassment in the councils of the evolutionists to 
inquire why the apes and monkeys were not progressive 
and how man came into possession of those transforming 
glands! 


CHAPTER VIII 
THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 


Is rr CLEAR AND LOGICAL? 


The evolutionist to whom reference is made in the title 
of this chapter is Edwin Grant Conklin, Professor of 
Biology in Princeton University and a well-known advo- 
cate of evolution. Since he is a professional scientist, 
his conclusions amount to an authoritative dictum with 
mzny people. Anent the present debate over evolution, 
he recently issued a brochure entitled Evolution and the 
Bible. We have read it with care, and, while we admit 
that the author offers some counts in favor of his theory, 
he also commits what we cannot help regarding as some 
serious errors. While he is a renowned physical scien- 
tist, his logical sagacity does not seem to be on a par with 
his zeal for scientific research. We shall try to make 
this assertion clear as we proceed. 


Tue PRESENT UPRISING AGAINST EVOLUTION 


To begin at the beginning, he regards the present up- 
rising against evolution as ‘“‘a curious recrudescence of 
the old theological fight of fifty years ago.” This is a 
historical misstatement. All along, from the days of Dar- 
win, Huxley and Spencer, evangelical scholars have been 
opposing evolution and pointing out its scientific inade- 
quacies; this has been done over and over again, year 

136 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 137 


by year, as we might show from abundant citations. But 
their arguments have been printed in works issued, for 
the most part, by religious publishers, and so the evolu- 
tionists have either ignored them or have been uncon- 
scious of their existence. Thus they have gone on in 
their self-confident way until they have made evolution a 
popular fad, not to say a furor, have put it into many 
school books and other publications for children and 
young people, and have broadcasted their theories over 
the world in the newspapers and popular magazines. This 
popular propaganda has naturally brought the opponents 
of the theory, including several well-known laymen of 
popular qualities, out into the public forum. The present 
opposition to evolution is therefore no “recrudescence’’; 
it is merely a matter of new found publicity. The scien- 
tists, going along in their self-complacent way, were evi- 
dently all unaware of the existence of this powerful under- 
current of opposition to their teaching, until they were 
awakened by the publicity given to it through the news- 
papers and magazines. Ever since the days of Glad- 
stone’s and Dean Wace’s controversies with Huxley and 
other of its advocates, there has been a broad and deep 
current of opposition to evolution. 

Our scientist thinks that the present ‘‘movement”’ 
against evolution is “partly due to the increased emotion- 
alism let loose by the war.’? This is another wrong in- 
duction; for the opponents of evolution are not controlled 
by emotionalism; what they demand, above all, is sound 
empirical demonstration. For example, to point out two 
specific instances, they want to see actual proof of spon- 
taneous generation and the transmutation of species. 
Their objections to the theory are largely scientific. In 
science they want demonstration, not speculation or mere 
probable inference. If the theory of evolution is ever 


138 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


proven to be true, it will then be time enough for 
Christian scholars to see whether they can adjust their 
theological views to the theory. 


DUBIETY REGARDING THE CAUSES OF EVOLUTION 


Another of our evolutionist’s miscues is this: “‘Uncer- 
tainty as to the causes of evolution has been interpreted 
by many non-scientific persons as throwing doubt upon 
its truth.” This is repeated several times in this leaflet. 
But it is a plain case of missing the mark. Anti-evolu- 
tionists do not ask the advocates of the theory to point out 
the causes of evolution. That is not the crux at all. 
What they demand is the fact, not the causes. To be 
specific, they want to be shown just one clear case of 
living matter evolving from non-living matter. If such 
an instance can be brought forward in the clear light of 
demonstration, they will not trouble any scientist to tell 
them what caused such an evolution to take place. So 
also, if an actual case of the transformation of species can 
be produced, they will not demand that the scientists 
point out the causes; they will accept the scientific demon- 
stration. To illustrate, theologians accept the doctrine of . 
gravitation because it has been sufficiently validated; they 
do not dispute the doctrine because scientists cannot ex- 
plain the “causes.” No one can explain human life and 
consciousness, but no one, on that account, goes about 
denying the existence of human life and consciousness. 

Professor Conklin expresses surprise that his scientific 
theory should be opposed on the ground that it is “not 
supported by certain literal and narrow interpretations of 
Bible texts.” Here is another logical fallacy: the terms 
“literal” and “narrow” do not belong to the same logical 
category. An interpretation may be literal without being 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 139 


narrow. We are interpreting Professor Conklin literally, 
but not narrowly. So with the treatment of the Bible. 
' Moreover, is not the literal interpretation of the Bible 
the only honest interpretation? Is not that the way to 
interpret all literature? Ifa writer expresses himself in a 
literal way, we certainly ought to give his language a lit- 
eral exegesis. We have no right to read into his speech 
a meaning which he does not express or imply; no right 
to make him say something that he never meant to say; 
no right to call his narrative allegory when it is one which 
he obviously intended to be accepted as history. 


THE QUESTION OF SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION 


Our polemicist speaks of “those who wield the sword 
of a militant faith against science.”’ Several times he ac- 
cuses theologians of opposing “‘science”’ because they op- 
pose “evolution.” Here is another case of the logical 
fallacy of the hysteron proteron, which is tantamount to 
begging the question. It is not a fact that evangelical 
theologians are opposed to science. They are lovers of 
science. Some most eloquent tributes to science have 
come from the pens of evangelical theologians. They are 
not convinced, however, that the theory of evolution is 
entitled to the name of science. Hence they oppose only 
those human speculations which have not yet been estab- 
lished by scientific proof. The present writer has been a 
lover and student of natural science for over fifty years; 
and has been waiting all this time for the evolutionists 
to fill up the hiatuses and to find the missing links in 
support of their theory. Scientists should have sufficient 
acumen to discriminate between science and unproved 
hypotheses—Bene docet qui bene distinguit. 


140 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


No DANGER OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION 


We cannot sympathize with our evolutionist’s fear of a 
religious inquisition, an Index Prohibitus, or an auto-da-fe. 
There is small danger to-day that evolutionists will have 
to go to the stake, or suffer from thumbscrews, or endure 
the tortures of broiling in a hot cauldron. It seems 
strange that whenever liberalists and evolutionists are 
confronted with vigorous arguments, they straightway be- 
gin to raise the cry of “persecution.” To say the least, 
this does not strike us as brave or manly.* 

A further serious reflection may be in order here. 
Judging from the many threatening gestures of the evolu- 
tionists, the angry spirit they often display, the derision 
they heap upon their opponents, and their apparent desire 
to force their teaching, whether or no, on the tax-sup- 
ported schools of our country—judging by these facts, 
one cannot help wondering whether they might not resort 
to persecution if they should ever gain the upperhand in 
public affairs. Human nature, especially in its unspir- 
itual state, is not to be trusted when it succeeds in get- 
ting into control. Might we not have another “reign of 


terror,” such as marked the French Revolution? Anxiety | 


may especially be felt in view of the fact that some of 
the leading advocates of evolution hold that the law of the 


*A scientist in Harper’s Magazine for December, 1923, after re- 
ferring to the Holy Inquisitors, who, as everybody knows, lived cen- 
turies ago and in the dark ages, goes on in this wise: ‘To-day their 
kindred spirits are attempting to forbid the study of biology, and they 
would put us in irons and send us to prison if we expound comparative 
anatomy.” Why should any person make such a charge? Conserva- 
tive believers have no such design or desire. They love science and 
want it taught. They object only to the teaching of speculations and 
conjectures as if they were established facts. More than that, it is not 
manly for scientists to complain about “persecution.” Let them be 
brave in contending for their views, and they will at least win the 
respect of their opponents. 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 141 


struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest— 
the law of the jungle—is still the dominant law in the 
world. At all events, we may be sure that, if the evolu- 
tionists should ever gain the dominancy, they would over- 
whelm their opponents with ridicule. 

Many Christians, indeed, have suffered martyrdom. In 
the early centuries of the Christian era thousands of them 
were tortured and put to death in the most inhuman ways 
by pagan unbelievers. But they suffered bravely, uncom- 
plainingly. Even the two noble women, Perpetua and 
Felicitas, walked into the arena of the Amphitheater at 
Rome to be devoured by wild beasts, and they endured 
without a whimper. During the Middle Ages most of 
the people who were persecuted were Christians. Very 
few scientists and unbelievers have ever suffered any real 
persecution. Only one scientist, so far as we can recall, 
was ever put to death—Giordano Bruno; and even of his 
case Dr. Louis T. More has this to say: “The burning 
of Giordano Bruno in 1600 is often cited as an example 
of the prevailing attitude of the church toward science. 
While it was a futile attempt to crush heresy, science was 
not in the least involved, as Bruno was in no sense a man 
of science.” ? 


Wuat Asout LEGISLATION AND EVOLUTION? 


As to the question of legislating against the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools, we have little to say. 
Perhaps it might be as well simply to use argument and 
persuasion and not to resort to legislation at all. 

However, something is to be said on the other side. 
Since it has come about that so many evolutionists set 
up their theories in opposition to the Bible, and either re- 

? The Dogma of Evolution, p. 85. 


142 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


ject it altogether or such parts of it as do not agree with 
their penchant, and since a very large number of people 
who support our state schools believe the Bible to be 
God’s inspired Word, it is fair to ask whether these be- 
lievers have no legal and moral rights; whether they do 
not at least have the right to protest; also whether, if 
religion is not taught in our state universities, irreligion 
and liberalism shall have free scope. Some state legis- 
latures have forbidden the Bible to be used in the public 
schools. No protest against this kind of legislation has 
come from Professor Conklin; yet he makes a most vigor- 
ous protest against any legislation which would rule the 
teaching of evolution out of the schools. Is his conduct 
consistent and equable? 

It is pertinent to ask whether the evolutionists really 
want to impose their teaching, nolens volens, on the pa- 
trons of our public schools. If so, does that seem to be 
fair? Is it in accordance with the American principle 
of freedom and equality? Very few, if any, Christian 
people want to force their religious teaching upon unwill- 
ing persons; and if they did try to do so, it would be 
wrong and un-American. Why are not the evolutionists 
willing to be equally fair? , 


Wuo MAKES INFIDELS OF YOUNG PEOPLE? 


In Dr. Conklin’s brochure an attempt is made to shift 
the blame for the defections of young people from the 
Christian faith upon the shoulders of those who oppose 
evolution—that is, to represent the defenders of the 
Christian faith as the ones who make skeptics! This 
seems to be another case of Ahab’s challenge to Elijah: 
“Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” It is a strange cir- 
cular kind of argument—the most loyal defenders of the 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 143 


Bible cause people to become infidels! The present 
writer has known a number of young people who have 
‘been turned into infidels or semi-infidels through the 
teaching of evolution in colleges and universities; he has 
yet to meet one who was turned from the evangelical 
faith by the thoroughgoing defense of the Bible and the 
Christian system of doctrine. On the other hand, he does 
not know an out-and-out evolutionist who does not either 
cast the whole Bible overboard or refuse to accept many 
parts of it in their clear, literal sense. Dr. Conklin’s 
leaflet is itself prima facie proof that the evolutionist 
declines to make the Bible his standard of authority; 
that he aligns himself with the liberalists of the Kent, 
Fosdick, Shailer Mathews school, and jeers at the “ultra- 
orthodox.” 

If young people in colleges and universities give up 
their faith in the Bible on the basis of the ‘evidences’ 
adduced in favor of evolution, it needs saying that they 
are very easily shifted from one position to another; 
that religiously they are as unstable as ‘“‘a wave of the sea, 
driven by the wind and tossed.” In the face of the fact 
that the foremost biologists of the day concede that the 
principle of biogenesis holds the field, we see no good 
reason why any one should abandon his biblical faith for 
the unproved hypothesis of evolution. It would be well 
to have the humility to take at least a position of sus- 
pended judgment. 


Woo Is CoMPETENT TO ForRM A JUDGMENT? 


Listen again to our protagonist: “Few opponents of 
evolution at the present time have either the technical 
training or even the desire to weigh critically the evidences 
for or against its truth. Properly to appreciate these 


144 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


evidences requires some first-hand knowledge of mor- 
phology, physiology, embryology, ecology, paleontology, 
and genetics.” ‘The same, he says, is true of biology. 
Therefore, let everybody else keep silent; only the few 
specialists and experts have a right to form and pro- 
nounce a judgment on the theory of evolution! 

These assumptions demand attention and analysis. Is 
evolution growing into an esoteric cult? Has it become 
the monopoly of a favored few? If so, what is going to 
be its benefit to the masses of the people? Do the evolu- 
tionists mean to cry, “Hands off!” to all the rest of us, 
while they issue their fiats as to what we shall believe? 
Is there to be a new “hierarchy,” whose high priests are 
the evolutionists? Must the people support our schools 
and school teachers, and yet keep silent as to what is 
being taught to their children? We do not believe that 
such assumptions are in harmony with the fundamental 
principles of our free Republic. They spell autocracy; 
they annul democracy. If this land is to continue to be 
a government of the people, by the people, and for the 
people, the people must preserve their right to pass judg- 
ment on the kind of teaching imparted in the schools they 
establish, support and govern. | 

If the champions of evolution deem it a hardship be- 
cause they cannot be free to teach their theory, lest they 
hold back what they believe to be the truth, we would 
remind them that Christian people feel it to be no less a 
hardship that the Bible, which they hold to be so precious 
and all-important, cannot be frankly and freely taught in 
our schools. In view of the fact that Christian people 
are most earnest in their belief that the Bible is God’s 
Book, and that it gives to man his only hope of both 
temporal and eternal welfare, we think that evolutionists 
and others ought to appreciate the sacrifice they make 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 145 


when they refrain from insisting that the Christian reli- 
gion shall be taught everywhere. But in this country 
they make that sacrifice. Ought not other people to be 
likewise magnanimous? Should any one inquire, ‘How, 
then, shall the truth be propagated?” we reply that the 
Christian people of our land ask the same question with 
regard to their faith, which they believe to be the truth. 
If we are going to live together in peace in this land of 
freedom, there must be mutual and equable restraint and 
sacrifice. After all, belief in evolution is not something 
that is essential to man’s temporal, social, economic, ethi- 
cal or eternal welfare. We have never known a person to 
be saved from sin by belief in evolution On the other 
hand, thousands have been saved from sin by faith in the 
Christ of the Bible. 

Another point must not be omitted: If the adult oppo- 
nents of evolution cannot understand it, cannot weigh the 
evidences pro and con, why do the evolutionists try to 
popularize it, to bring it to the comprehension of the 
common mind? Hendrik Van Loon’s books and some 
of J. Arthur Thomson’s are written for boys and girls 
in the grades and high schools, and Joseph McCabe has 
written The A BC of Evolution, which people of ordinary 
intelligence surely ought to be able to understand. 

“The whole scientific world long since was convinced 
of the truth of evolution,” is this writer’s declaration. But 
that statement is certainly too sweeping. We believe that 
there are many honest and capable scientists to-day who 
have serious doubts about the truth of evolution. Any- 
way, there have been times before in the world’s history 
when the vast majority of scientists were mistaken. Once, 
almost to a man, they accepted the Ptolemaic theory of 
the universe; but no scientist to-day accepts that view. 
Once the nebular hypothesis of Laplace was all the vogue; 


146 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


to-day it is having a hard struggle for acceptance. The 
history of the world is strewn with the debris of discarded 
scientific theories. 


FIxITY AND PLIANCY OF TYPE 


Dr. Conklin refers to “‘our domestic animals and cul- 
tivated plants” as having undergone many changes, some 
of these changes amounting to “specific differences.” 
Then he adds, “In short, evolution has occurred under 
domestication.” 

Is not that an over-statement? We doubt whether 
even “domestication” has ever produced a distinct type 
among either plants or animals. To specify, has any one 
ever succeeded in transforming a peach tree into an apple 
tree, a cow into a horse, or a dog into a sheep? Has any 
culturist ever been able to cross the border line even 
among distinct species? That there have been variations 
within the species no one will deny. What a blessing it has 
been to humanity that man is able to improve certain spe- 
cies of vegetables, fruits, grains, fowls and animals! That 
seems to have been the Creator’s original design. ‘Two 
outstanding facts in nature make for the welfare of man- 
kind—stability of the type and variation within the type. 

However, man must continue to “subdue” nature, to 
“dress” and “keep” her, as the Bible teaches.* If he does 
not, she will invariably revert to the original inferior 
type. Everybody is conversant with the fact of rever- 
sion in nature. If you neglect your farm or garden or 
orchard, what will happen to it in a short time? If the 
whole human family were destroyed to-day, in a hundred 
years the earth would be turned into a howling wilderness. 


* Gen. 1.28; ii.15. 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 147 


Nature would not even hold its own, much less continue 
to progress. The fact that Mendel, Burbank, and Dar- 
win were able to produce valuable modifications within 
the species does not prove nor connote that Nature her- 
self, left to her own way, would do the same. Man can 
do many things with Nature that Nature of her own 
accord could never do. Man can build a house and make 
an automobile; Nature never could do that. God made 
Nature stable in some ways and pliant in others. No 
doubt He did this to secure man’s well-being. 

We cannot admit that anti-evolutionists “concede evo- 
lution in rocks, plants, and probably animals, but draw 
the line at the evolution of man,” as Dr. Conklin alleges. 
No; our objections are much more far-reaching and fun- 
damental than that. We do not believe that matter and 
force were evolved; nor that living matter was evolved 
from dead matter; nor that animals were evolved from 
vegetables; nor that one distinct species has ever been 
evolved from another by means of natural forces; nor that 
the non-sentient can evolve into the sentient, the non- 
personal into the personal, the non-moral into the moral. 
Something cannot evolve out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil 
fit. 

Again we quote from Professor Conklin: ‘‘Apparently 
the anti-evolutionist demands to see a monkey or an ass 
transformed into a man, though he must be familiar 
enough with the reverse process.” 

The poor attempt at a joke may pass. However, if 
men do sometimes act as unbecomingly as the animals 
named, it is a case of reversion, which is the very 
opposite of evolution. It would be much more to the 
point if we could sometimes see the monkey and the ass 
actually advancing toward the human type. 


148 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Tre GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE TRANSFORMISTS 


Again we quote: 


Such evolution may be graphically represented by 
a tree on which the leaves and terminal branches rep- 
resent existing individuals and species, while the 
larger branches and trunks represent ancestral 
forms; one leaf is not derived from another, nor one 
terminal branch from another, but these are derived 
from some lower-lying branches. In short, there has 
been evolution in divergent lines. The human 
branch diverged from the anthropoid branch, not less 
than two million years ago, and since that time man 
has been evolving in the direction represented by 
existing human races, while the apes have been evolv- 
ing in the direction represented by existing anthro- 
poids. During all this time, men and apes have 
been growing more unlike, and, conversely, the far- 
ther back we go, the more we should find them con- 
verging until they meet in a common stock, which 
should be, in general, intermediate between these 
two stocks. 


Here we see man’s pedigree graphically set forth in 
arboreal imagery! Does it seem to be plausible and 
probable? Let us scrutinize it. First, has any one ever 
seen a real tree like the one here depicted—one that bore 
such a diversity of fruits on a common trunk? No one 
has ever even seen a tree that bore pokeberries on one 
branch and peaches on another. There are humanly culti- 
vated and budded trees that may bear inferior and superior 
fruit of the same species on different branches, but no 
one has ever seen even such a tree in the purely natural - 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 149 


sphere in the absence of man’s intervention. Therefore, 
Dr. Conklin’s genealogical tree is constructed purely out 
of his imagination, and corresponds to no known facts 
in the realm of natural history. 

Second, Dr. Conklin gives his theory ample time: ‘The 
human branch diverged from the anthropoid branch not 
less than two million years ago.” Is that science or con- 
jecture? A scientist ought to be very sure of his prem- 
ises, to make a statement like that. To tell just what 
took place two million years ago would require indubita- 
ble proof—proof so clear, indeed, that no one could gain- 
say it. We know scores and scores of theologians either 
personally or by repute; we do not know a single one 
who would risk his good name for sagacity or modesty by 
asserting what took place “not less than two million 
years ago.” 

In the third place, we would inquire what caused the 
human branch to diverge from the anthropoid branch? 
Why did not the other branches start along the human 
line, too? 

Again, could one branch of the common trunk have 
produced a different type unless something new was in- 
jected into the “‘germ-plasm”? Can fruit of a higher 
variety be produced from a common trunk without bud- 
ding or grafting through human intelligence and purpose? 
If a new germ-cell was injected from without by the 
Almighty, that would have been creation, not evolution. 

Note again that “since that time . . . the apes have 
been evolving in the direction represented by existing 
anthropoids.”’ One would surely think that, if the apes 
have been evolving for ‘not less than two million years,” 
they would have evolved into something a little beyond 
their present status. Is there any evidence of their mak- 
ing any improvement at all to-day? Historians and 


150 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


archeologists tell us that the present-day monkeys and 
apes are precisely like those of ancient Egypt and Baby- 
lonia, from three thousand to five thousand years ago, 
that they have made not one iota of progress. ‘They can 
be taught some things by men, as can many other animals, 
but in their natural condition there is no evidence of ad- 
vancement in intelligence, or otherwise. Thus, as far as 
empirical evidence goes, evolution cannot be proved; 
scientists beg the question by asking for two million years, 
to which period no human observer can go back. 


Past AND PRESENT STATUS OF APES AND MONKEYS 


At this point, some paragraphs from a well-informed 
writer will be relevant: 


The word evolution is generally used as though 
it were synonymous with development. No one, so 
far as my knowledge goes, denies that there has been 
development within almost every species of animals. 
But many do not believe in the Darwinian hypothesis 
of evolution, viz., that one species of animals de- 
velops into another species higher up, as, for example, 
the ape, or monkey, into man. They claim that the 
intervening links of development necessary to prove 
such an evolution, or transformation, have never 
been found, nor will ever be found. 

It is exceedingly strange how some people cling 
to the ape, or monkey, as an ancestor, considering 
the history of the ape. The oldest remains of the 
ape or monkey tribes, and their remains are as old 
as those of man, indicate that the ape was the same 
being, so far back as these remains reach, as he is 
now. ‘The brain capacity of his skull was just the 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 151 


same as that of the ape of our day; his fore limbs 
were just about as long; his teeth, claws, jaws, hairy 
skin, ugly mug, and all were just about what we see 
in the apes of the present day His brain capacity 
has always been lower than that of the lowest speci- 
men of man. 

So far back in time as these remains of the apes 
take us, there has been no appreciable approach to- 
ward man. The ape seems to have been stabilized 
ages ago. 

Intellectually the ape has been just as stabilized 
as he has been physically. He is no farther along 
than his remote ancestors were. They lived in the 
jungles and forests and ate nuts, berries, bugs, birds, 
rodents, etc. He has not, in all the thousands or 
millions of years that he has been on earth, been 
known to till a square rod of the earth’s surface. 
He has never been known to plant, sow, cultivate, 
grind or bake corn, barley or wheat. He, like the 
wild beasts, depends wholly on what he can find, that 
mother earth has brought forth spontaneously, for 
his subsistence. He neither sows, reaps, nor gathers 
into barns. In times of plenty he fares well. In 
times of scarcity he starves or migrates. He has 
never invented an alphabet nor made a book. 

And the ape defends himself to-day just as his 
most remote ancestors did. He fights with his claws 
and teeth. He may sometimes throw cocoanuts and 
stones, but he has never been known to make himself 
a war club, spear, stone hatchet, bow and arrow, 
much less a gun ora sword. He has never organized 
even the smallest system of government. He may 
run in gangs, but when two boss apes fight for the 
headship of the gang, they fight alone. The rest 


152 


THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


stand around and look on and then follow the one 
who whipped. They know nothing of combination 
to gain results. 

The ape lives to-day as the apes did when they 
first appeared on the surface of the earth where 
their remains are found. They have never been 
known to build themselves any sort of dwelling place. 
They have never learned to strike fire from the flint 
nor make a lucifer match. They have never made 
a plow nor harrow nor cradle. They are still stick- 
ing in the mud like their ancestors. 

How different with man! Man in the far east, 
at least, four or five thousand years ago, built houses, 
cities and temples. He cultivated the soil and made 
bread. He had a literature and science. In Europe, 
where he appears to have lived in the early ages as a 
savage or semi-savage, he made himself war clubs, 
spears, bows and arrows, stone axes; later he built 
houses and schools, churches, cities and empires. 
Man has risen to sublime heights. 

He has conquered the sea, the earth and the air. 
He has made them all his servants. What has the 
ape done? And if he has not done anything in six 
or ten thousand years, what hope is there that he 
will ever do anything? But scientists tell us that 
it is not any of the present apes that are the ances- 
tors of man; that it was some more ancient and 
superior ape from which he sprang. What, then, is 
the matter with evolution? Has it ceased to work? 
If not, why has the ape ceased to evolve into man? 
If it has ceased to operate, then it is not an irre- 
sistible law of nature, and evolution of this kind fails. 

I prefer to believe that man was created by 
Almighty God, Creator of the heavens and the earth 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 153. 


and all things that in them are, and that this God 
breathed into man something of Himself which He 
did not give to the ape. If some prefer to believe 
that they are children of the ape, they have that 
privilege. I prefer to call myself a child of God.* 


Not in a volume of theological essays, but in a schol- 
arly scientific book, Mr. Horace Hutchinson holds that 
animals do not exhibit anything like human reason. He 
says: 


Nowhere do we see an animal with any cognizance 
of the future, laying a plan, choosing an end and 
adapting means. The stupidity of animals is really 
insagacity. [Then he adds that the ape] has for 
long periods been privileged to watch man making 
his fires, using his bows, his clubs, and so forth. 
The monkeys, we are told, will come down and 
warm themselves gratefully at the embers of the 
fire which man has left glowing in the forest. But 
not to a single one of them has it occurred to place 
another branch from those lying around them, on 
the dying fire, though some of them must have seen 
this done by man a score of times. 


If evolution is the dominant law in nature, why does 
- it not show its hand in the case of the ape? The evo- 
lutionist will reply that it is absurd to expect this! Why 
is it absurd? If animals which were sub-apes long ages 
ago, when they had no human examples and instructors 
to aid them, could evolve into human beings, why cannot 
the modern apes, who have the aid of human environ- 
ments, develop into human beings? 


*This article appeared in the New York Sun. 


154 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Dr. Conklin declares that man “comes from ape-like 
or monkey-like forms. . . . On the other hand, the re- 
semblances between monkeys, apes, and men are due to 
the persistent inheritance of certain common traits which 
they have derived from a common ancestor, just as the 
resemblances of cousins are due to the inheritance of 
traits from common grandparents.” 

But this is only an ipse dixit. Evolution is one in- 
ference that may be drawn from the premises; but it 
may be a mon sequitur. At any rate, it is that form of 
logical fallacy which we call “begging the question,” or 
taking for granted the very thing to be proved. Is there 
not some other way of accounting for the resemblances 
between men and animals? Does not the doctrine of 
special creations, as set forth in the biblical narrative, 
furnish an adequate and rational explanation of these 
parallelisms? If God formed man to be a part of the 
natural cosmos, and to live and function in the midst of a 
natural environment, would He not have made him to 
fit therein? How could this have been done except by 
making him in many respects like the natural realm 
about him? Even the so-called “recapitulatory theory,” 
if it were proved, might be explained on that basis, be- 
cause it would indicate that man was created to have 
an organic relation to the natural cosmos, which was 
to be his home and over which he was to exercise 
dominion. 

A recent author tries to account for man’s trait of 
curiosity by saying he inherited it from his “brute an- 
cestry.” Is it not more rational to believe that God 
originally created man with that predilection, which is 
the source of his desire to increase in knowledge and 
power? Is not that a higher and nobler origin for such 
an excellent psychological trait? 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 155 


Romanes is quoted by Dr. Conklin as saying that, if 
we reject the evolutionary theory, ‘“‘we can only suppose 
‘that the Deity in creating man took the most scrupulous 
pains to make him in the image of the beasts.” ° While 
that seems to be said in scorn, yet the truth in it is that, 
in the matter of physical structure and natural instinct, 
God did make man very much like the natural creatures 
around him. Had man been totally unlike the soil, the 
vegetables and the animals, he could not have subsisted 
in the midst of his natural context. Therefore, these 
many striking resemblances between man and other crea- 
tures constitute the most cogent argument for the divine 
creation of all things. This view assigns an adequate 
cause for the cosmos and an adequate purpose in its 
creation and peculiar constitution. But if in man’s 
lower nature he bears a similarity to the physical realm, 
in his higher nature, his psychical being, he bears the 
image of his Maker. Thus he is vitally connected with 
both the natural and the supernatural realms. Is not that 
a rational doctrine? It differs widely from the teaching 
of Van Loon, who says in one of his books, “We do 
not know how or why or when the human race began its 
career on earth.” The Christian doctrine is certainly the 
more salutary and uplifting. 


Is THE RECAPITULATION THEORY A VALID PROOF? 


In regard to the “recapitulation theory,” Professor 
Conklin says that “in it we see evolution repeated before 


*Romanes was once an atheist, and wrote a book against the theistic 
world-view. Later he was converted to Christianity, and recalled his 
errors, presenting strong arguments for the divine existence and the 
Christian system. Dr. Conklin’s quotation must, therefore, be taken 
from his early infidel work and is consequently both antiquated and 
worthless. It is inconceivable that a Christian man would write such 
a sentence as is here ascribed to Romanes. 


156 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


our eyes.” But that, too, may be a non sequitur. The 
doctrine of creation may also explain that phenomenon, 
for that may be the Deity’s way of connecting man vitally 
and organically with his natural environment. However, 
our evolutionist is honest enough to say that “develop- 
ment from the human embryo repeats some of the main 
stages of evolution.” Note the qualifying words “some” 
and “main.” But he adds, “The fact that certain em- 
bryonic structures do not repeat the evolutionary history 
does not destroy this general principle of embryonic 
recapitulation.” : 
We would ask, Why not? Here again the scientist 
must supply the “missing links” by the use of his 
imagination. He must make his inference broader than 
his facts. This is another logical fallacy. Perhaps our 
evolutionist has not read Drs. Colgrave and Short’s re- 
cent book, in which these learned laymen and scientists 
(not preachers or theologians) have this to say of the 
recapitulation theory: 


Nor will any one who has any acquaintance with 
the facts of human and animal embryology be dis- 
posed to accept without a great deal of qualification 
the old evolutionary theory that every man in his 
development climbs up his own genealogical tree. 
[Then they quote Professor Kellogg as followsi] 
“The recapitulation theory of Fritz Mueller and 
Haeckel is chiefly conspicuous now as a skeleton on 
which to hang innumerable exceptions. . . . The 
recapitulation theory is mostly wrong.” ® 


Thus, according to the testimony of some scientists 
themselves, this theory is far from proving evolution. 


®*The Historic Faith in the Light of To-day, p. 15. 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 157 


Man’s HuMBLE CONCEPTION AND BIRTH 


_ The opponents of evolution should give serious atten- 
tion to what Dr. Conklin next says; they should not 
ignore it, nor try to laugh it out of court. His argument 
is this: If we feel repelled by the doctrine of an animal 
ancestry for man, why do we not object to the fact that 
the individual man is developed from an “egg” in his 
mother’s womb? ‘That surely, he seems to think, is as 
lowly an origin for the individual as a pre-simian origin 
would be for the human race. 

Our reply is, first, the individual’s germinal origin is 
a fact of common and universal observation, and there- 
fore no one would presume to deny it. The Christian 
believer therefore knows that such origin and develop- 
ment are the divine order, and so he feels no humiliation 
or repugnance in view of the fact. But the proof of 
man’s animal origin is not forthcoming; it is not a matter 
of common or of scientific observation; it belongs to the 
realm of hypothesis; therefore the Christian man feels 
no need of accepting a repellent theory that lacks valida- 
tion and proof. 

Second, every Christian believer knows that the 
spermatized ovum in the seminal depths of the human 
mother is a human germ, not a vegetable, mollusk, frog 
or baboon germ. He knows, too, that if properly nur- 
tured by human blood and human love and care, it will 
develop into a conscious, rational personality, not into 
an animal. The microscope may not be able to distin- 
guish between the nuclear human embryo and the animal 
embryo, but in quality and possibility there is an un- 
bridgeable gulf between them. Therefore, there is some- 
thing essentially and intrinsically noble about the nucleus 
from which a human being grows. Thus Dr. Conklin’s 


158 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


scorn of evangelical believers on this ground is gratuitous 
and irrelevant. 


Man’s Bopy FoRMED FROM CLEAN SOIL 


Referring to the biblical narrative of Adam’s forma- 
tion from the dust of the ground, our evolutionist in- 
quires: “Is it any more degrading to hold that man 
was made through a long line of animal ancestry than 
to believe that he was made directly from the dust? 
Surely the horse and the dog and the monkey belong to 
higher orders of existence than do the clod and the 
stone.” Then he quotes Sir Charles Lyell as saying: 
“Tt is either mud or monkey.” Dr. Conklin even goes so 
far as to say on a previous page: “The idea that the 
Eternal God took mud or dust and molded it with hands 
or tools into a human form is not only irreverent; it is 
ridiculous.” He thinks it much more reasonable to be- 
lieve that “(God made the first man as he made the 
last,”’ etc. 

In reply we would say: First, there is abundant em- 
pirical proof, as we have already shown, that man’s body 
is composed of precisely the same chemical constituents 
as the soil. Chemical analysis has proved that to be a 
fact. Therefore, when the Bible teaches that man’s 
physical organism was framed from the finest material 
of the ground, it is in agreement with what we know 
to-day scientifically about its composition. Thus there 
is nothing irreverent or ridiculous about the biblical 
narrative; rather, instead of running off into absurd 
mythology, it walks with its feet on the earth in the sphere 
of solid fact. Christian believers, therefore, feel no re- 
pugnance toward such truths as are established by 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 159 


empirical observation. They do feel repelled, however, 
by the thought that the germ-plasm from which they 
were derived was at one time, however remote, a bestial 
germ-plasm instead of a human one, 

Again, no Christian theologian—no, nor the most 
humble and unlettered Christian believer—thinks for a 
moment that “the Eternal God took mud” from which to 
make man. That is an argumentum ad hominem. The 
Bible does not say “mud.” It says “dust.” And Dr. 
Keil, the scholarly Old Testament exegete, explains that 
the Hebrew word for “dust” (aphar) means “‘the finest 
material of the soil” of the Garden of Eden. Therefore, 
it was clean soil. God had made it pure and beautiful, 
and pronounced it, with the rest of the cosmos, “very 
good.” * That is the evangelical view, and there is noth- 
ing revolting about it, as there is about the theory that 
man came up from filthy and ferocious beasts as they now 
exist, and as evolutionists teach they have always existed. 
As has been shown in a previous chapter, biblical Chris- 
tians do not believe that the pristine world, as God made 
it, was in its present fallen condition; that was caused 
by the despoliation of sin. Hence man’s origin, both of 
soul and body, is, according to the Christian view, digni- 
fied, pure and holy. 

An unwarranted piece of derision is the fling that God 
molded man “with hands or tools.” No Christian has 
ever been so crude as to think that or say it. The sug- 
gestion itself indicates a sad lack of knowledge of the 
teaching of theology. Christians are not so presumptuous 
as to attempt to describe the process by which God 
framed man’s body. We have read many works on 
Christian theology, ancient, medieval and modern, and 


* Gen. i.31. 


160 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


have never read anything so sacrilegious as that in any 
of them. The Bible does not tell us anywhere how it 
was done, any more than it tells us how God created 
the primordial material, or made the first germs of life, 
or created the soul of the first man. The simple dignity 
and order of the Genesiacal narrative would lead us to 
believe that He always wrought in a way that was worthy 
of His majesty and holiness. 

Referring to the biblical account of the framing of 
man’s body, Professor Conklin calls it “a process,” and 
thinks that “the opponents of evolution ought to be 
able to conceive of a dignified and divine way in which 
the Creator fashioned man.” We reply, If the Creator 
fashioned man in the direct way set forth in the Bible, 
that was both “dignified and divine,” for then God made 
him good and noble from the start; but if God first 
made him a filthy beast, swirling a long tail, his whole 
body covered with long hair, and climbing about in the 
trees of a jungle, engaged in fierce contests with other 
animals, it is hard to see how it could properly be styled 
“a dignified and divine way.” Moreover, while we are 
willing to grant that the Bible describes the act as a 
process, it would not be a fair and natural interpretation 
of the language to read into it the age-long process of 
evolution. Let us treat the Bible honestly. 

In other chapters of this book we have dealt with the 
data of the fossil remains of man, Neanderthal, Trinil, 
Cro-Magnon, etc., and would also cite Colgrave and 
Short’s treatise referred to above. Our author demands 
scientific evidence of the doctrine of special creations. 
In reply we refer him to Chapter IV of this volume. 


® The Historic Faith in the Light of To-day, pp. 49, 50, 52. 


THE REASONING OF AN EVOLUTIONIST 161 


CHRISTIANITY AND THE “RELIGION OF EVOLUTION.” 


More recently Dr. Conklin published an authoritative 
article ® dealing with the subject of evolution and re- 
ligion. Some evolutionists would deny positively that 
evolution is a religion, but Dr. Conklin seems to make 
it the very basis of religion, for he says: ‘The Religion 
of evolution deals with this world rather than the next. 
It prays, ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth.’ 
It seeks to build here and now ‘the City of God.’ ” 

Here the claim is made that evolution is to give the 
world a religion, and that it is competent to say just what 
kind of a religion it should have. But the religion here 
described by our evolutionist is not the Christian re- 
ligion, but is un-biblical and anti-biblical, one of its 
foremost champions himself being on the witness stand. 
The Christian religion is broader and better than the 
evolutionary brand, because it instructs mankind regard- 
ing both this world and the next. It is not confined to 
this brief span of our earthly existence, nor to this little 
planet on which we now live. Our Lord told us how to 
live well here, and do our part; but He also opened up 
the gateway of futurity to our vision, saying: “Let not 
your heart be troubled; believe in God and believe in 
me: In my Father’s house are many abiding places; 
if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare 
a place for you.” Says the apostle Paul: ‘Christ hath 
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” 
To show the breadth and all-sidedness of the Christian 
religion over against the narrower character of Dr. 
Conklin’s religion of evolution, we cite Paul again: 


® Published in the New York World. 


162 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


“Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of 
the life that now is and of that which is to come.” The 
Christian religion is both terrestrial and celestial. It is 
not narrow. To declare, therefore, that evolution and 
Christianity are in accord, and then tone down Chris- 
tianity to force it into consonance with evolution, is 
neither good logic nor good religion. 


CHAPTER IX 
PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 


SoME Fatat ADMISSIONS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS 


A recent book entitled The Evolution of the Earth and 
Its Inhabitants, by five professors of Yale University, 
contains some fatal admissions on the part of advocates 
of the evolutionary theory. ‘These men are courteous, 
non-controversial, frank and honest, and are among the 
best exponents of the evolution theory. If all evolution- 
ists displayed their fine spirit, the question could be 
argued in the courts of science, reason and Be citt with 
no personal ill-will to obscure the j issue. 

One of the most enlightening chapters of the book is 
the one on “The Origin of Life” by Professor Lorande 
Loss Woodruff. He admits frankly that spontaneous 
generation is still unproved, and that the law of biogenesis 
now holds the field among scientists.1 Note the follow- 
ing: ‘“The theory which has gained content and impetus 
as the years have rolled, is that matter does not assume 
the living state, at the present time at least, except under 
the influence of pre-existing living matter.”? Again: 
“We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as 
human observation and experimentation go, no form of 
life arises to-day except from pre-existing life.” Further 
on he quotes from Dr. E. B. Wilson, whom he calls “the 


*The Evolution of the Earth and Its Inhabitants, pp. 89 ff. 
* Ibid., p. 1. * Ibid., p. 93. 


163 


164 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


dean of American biologists,” to this effect: “The study 
of the cell has, on the whole, seemed to widen rather 
than to narrow the enormous gap that separates even 
the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world.” * 
This quotation is from Dr. Wilson’s book, The Cell in Its 
Development and Inheritance. 

Professor Woodruff canvasses eight different modern 
theories of the origin of life, e.g., Vitalism, the Cosmozoa 
theory, Pfluegler’s theory, Moore’s theory, etc., and finds 
all of them inadequate. After a scientific analysis of 
these hypotheses, he comes to the conclusion that 
“biologists are at the present time absolutely unable, and 
probably will be for all time unable, to obtain empirical 
evidence on any of the crucial questions relating to the 
origin of life on the earth.” ® 

Dr. E. B. Wilson is also the author of a book entitled 
The Physical Basis of Life. It is a profoundly scientific 
dissertation. With all the author’s desire and effort to 
establish evolution, however, the upshot of his whole 
discussion is that, at least for the present, the connecting 
link between the inorganic and organic kingdoms has 
not been found; life is as profound a mystery as 
ever, and, as far as empirical observation goes, the 
law of biogenesis still holds the field. Abiogenesis is 
only a big name, and does not stand for a fact. The 
chasm between the living and the non-living still remains 
unbridged. 

The regrettable fact about this book is, that so frank 
and competent a scientist nowhere makes the slightest 
suggestion that God, or some kind of an intelligence, 
might in some way be connected with the wonderful 
composition and processes of the living cell. In spite of 
the author’s silence on this point, we felt conscious more 

* Ibid., p. 94. * Ibid., p. 107. 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 165 


than once, as we perused his instructive study, of the 
presence of the Supreme Being. 

One of the most enlightening of recent books is by 
Vernon Kellogg. While he holds firmly to the doctrine 
of evolution, he makes so many concessions in regard 
to its failures that he must constantly resort to dogmatic 
assertion in lieu of proof in order to bolster up the 
theory. However, we shall here confine our attention 
to what he says regarding the origin of life. After speak- 
ing of various attempts to produce life artificially and 
a number of conjectures that have been offered, he says: 


But, nobody has yet made an amceba in a test 
tube, nor infusoria in a sterilized hay infusion. 
Pasteur and Tyndall long ago exploded the naive 
claims of the believers in spontaneous generation. 
Omne vivum ex vivo. It is only life that produces 
life. The ameeba-like bit of oil foam, with all of 
its realistic imitation of amceba’s movements, the 
most complex molecules created by the organic 
chemist, with all their identity of chemical elements 
with protoplasm, are all of that long way from 
amceba and protoplasm which is measured and de- 
fined by the phrases, non-life and life. There is a 
great gulf between what is living and what is not. 
And that gulf creates the great question for evolu- 
tionists and non-evolutionists alike: the question of 
the origin of life.® 


To our mind, these concessions are fatal to the theory 
of evolution; for if it fails at the most crucial point, 
namely, the origin of life, it admits itself inadequate by 
that very fact. Moreover, since the sponsors of evolution 


* Evolution, pp. 110, III. 


166 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


admit that life has never been proved to have been 
evolved from non-living matter, why are they not just 
as frank to admit that they have no more definite and 
positive proof of the transmutation of species? We hold 
that the law of fixity of type in organisms is just as 
obvious as is the law of biogenesis. To put it in another 
way for the sake of emphasis, transformation of species 
is just as far from being demonstrated as is spontaneous 
generation. Thus at the very points where evolution 
should prove itself strong, it utterly collapses. On the 
other hand, at those very crucial points the doctrine of 
special creations proves itself entirely adequate and 
peculiarly convincing. 

Reference has already been made to Dr. William Bate- 
son’s honest admissions in his Toronto address. It cre- 
ated much discussion, and some anti-evolutionists, who 
took advantage of its frank admissions, were accused of 
perversion and misrepresentation because they depended 
on the mere hearing of what Dr. Bateson said, or on press 
reports of the address. But now we have his views in 
black and white, printed in Science, so there is no chance 
for garbling or misstating. Let us note what an honest 
and competent scientist has to say. Speaking of the 
assurance with which evolution was advocated some years 
ago in the heyday of Darwinism, Dr. Bateson observes: 


So we went on talking about evolution. That is 
barely forty years ago; to-day we feel silence to be 
the safer course. [Again] Discussion of evolution 
came to an end because it was obvious that no 
progress was being made. [Further on he says] 
When students of other sciences ask us what is now 
currently believed about the origin of species, we 
have no clear answer to give. . . . Where precisely 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 167 


has the difficulty arisen? Though the reasons for 
our reticence are many, and present themselves in 
many forms, they are one in essence; that, as we 
have come to know more of living things and their 
properties, we have become more and more im- 
pressed with the inapplicability of the evidence to 
these questions of origin. There is no apparatus 
which can be brought to bear on them which prom- 
ises any immediate solution. 


Later on he speaks of the boastful claims of a former 
day: 


What glorious assumption went without rebuke! 
Regardless of the obvious consideration that “modifi- 
cation by descent” must be a chemical process, and 
that, of the principles governing chemistry, science 
has neither hint nor surmise, nor even an empirical 
observation of its workings, professed men of science 
offered very confidently positive opinions on these 
nebulous topics, which would now scarcely pass 
muster in a newspaper or a sermon. It is a whole- 
some sign of return to sense that these debates have 
been suspended. . . . Biological science has re- 
turned to its rightful place—investigation of the 
structure and properties of the concrete and visible 
world. But that particular and essential bit of the 
theory of evolution which is concerned with the 
origin and nature of species remains utterly mys- 
terious. 


To this we reply: That “particular and essential bit of 
the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin 
and nature of species” is the crux of the whole contention. 


168 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


We hold, therefore, that Dr. Bateson virtually capitulates 
to the opponents of evolution. 

Thus the verdict in the court of science itself regarding 
evolution is, “Not proven.” Dr. Bateson concedes that 
it has not been validated in respect to the origin of 
species, and Professor Woodruff, Vernon Kellogg and Dr. 
E. B. Wilson make the same admission regarding the 
genesis of life. These admissions were not forced from 
these capable scientists—they were voluntarily offered to 
the public; nor were they printed in religious books and 
periodicals, but in those of a purely scientific character. 
The honesty of these eminent men impelled them to be 
frank. It is true, Dr. Bateson, instead of giving up 
evolution, says it must be accepted “by faith.” But a 
scientific theory cannot be proven in that way. 

An illuminating article appeared recently in The New 
Republic from the pen of Professor John M. Brewer of 
Harvard University. He quotes from a book by G. H. 
Howison, entitled The Limits of Evolution, published 
some years ago. Professor Brewer thinks that this book 
is the clearest and most scholarly essay ever published 
on the philosophical aspects of the evolutionary hypothe- 
sis. Howison was an advocate of evolution, but we fear 
he was neither a good philosopher nor a lucid reasoner. 
Moreover, his admissions, as we shall see, are fatal to 
his theory. 

In his opening paragraph he declares that the theory 
of evolution has practically become dominant, has been 
incorporated in the thought of the age. Its devotees hold, 
he avers, that man’s mind is the outcome of the evolu- 
tionary process. .Note how he puts it: The mind is “a 
result of development from what is not mind.” But 
how could the non-mental evolve into the mental? Can 
something come out of nothing? Further on, our author 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 169 


says that the evolutionists look upon the human mind’s 
“highest attributes—its ideality, its sense of duty, its 
religion—as tracing their origin back to the unideal, the 
conscienceless, the unreligious, and as thus in some sense 
depending for their being on what has been well termed 
‘the physical basis of life.’ ” 

This certainly is strange philosophy—that the con- 
science could evolve from ‘“‘the conscienceless,” the ideal 
from the “unideal,”’ the religious from the “unreligious.” 
That view is tantamount to saying that something can 
come from nothing. 

On six crucial points Mr. Howison concedes the failure 
of evolution, They are as follows: (1) It cannot cross 
the chasm between the phenomenal and the noumenal; 
(2) it cannot bridge the gulf between the inorganic and 
the organic; (3) it cannot explain origins; (4) it cannot 
deal successfully with causation; (5) it cannot explain 
the human reason; (6) it cannot explain man’s con- 
science. 

We may well ask, then, what does it explain? Those 
six facts are the very facts that need to be explained. 
They are the crucial facts. That life comes from previous 
life every schoolboy knows. What we want to know is, 
how life originated. At every point where evolution 
ought to be strong, it proves itself inept and inadequate. 

Darwin said: “In what manner the mental powers 
were first developed in the lowest organism is as hopeless 
an inquiry as how life itself originated.” Spencer con- 
ceded that there is “no resemblance between a unit of 
feeling and unit of motion.” Again note this from 
Darwin: ‘The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder.” 
Why? Because Darwin saw that it could not be ac- 
counted for by his theory of development by means of 
“natural selection.” Professor H. W. Conn, a well-known 


170 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


American exponent of evolution, makes this frank but 
damaging admission concerning the origin of life: 
“Upon this subject, it must be confessed, we are in as 
deep ignorance as ever. Indeed, if anything, the dis- 
closures of the modern microscope have placed the evolu- 
tion of this problem even farther from our grasp.” 

Mr. Huxley long ago showed that the doctrine of the 
struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest does 
not hold good in the moral life of man. Let us quote 
from this scientist: 


The ethical process is in opposition to the prin- 
ciple of the cosmic process, and tends to the sup- 
pression of the qualities best fitted for success in 
that struggle. [Again] The practice of that which 
is ethically best . . . involves a course of conduct 
which in all respects is opposed to that which leads 
to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In 
place of ruthless self-assertion, it demands self-re- 
straint; in the place of thrusting aside, or treading 
down, all competitors, it requires that the individual 
shall not merely respect, but shall help, his fellows; 
its influence is directed not so much to the survival of 
the fittest as to the fitting of as many as possible to 
survive. It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of 
existence. . . . Laws and moral precepts are di- 
rected to the end of curbing the cosmic process and 
reminding the individual of his duty to the com- 
munity, to the protection and influence of which he 
owes, if not existence itself, at least the life of 
something better than the brutal savage. [In 
another place he says that] cosmic nature [is] no 
school of virtue, but the headquarters of the enemy 
of ethical nature. 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 171 


Thus, according to Huxley, “the ethical process” 
(morality) is the complete reversal of “the cosmic 
process” (evolution). Yet the evolutionists continue to 
assert that man’s moral nature and the practice of 
morality in society are the outcome of evolution up 
through nature from the protoplasm and the ameeba. 
That means that “the ethical process” is the natural off- 
spring of the “cosmic process.’ And that means that 
evolution has brought forth its direct opposite; also 
that it completely changes its method and program when 
it reaches morality in men. A wonder-worker is evolu- 
tion! Here are some of the miracles it makes possible: 
ferocity begets gentleness, cruelty begets kindness, selfish- 
ness begets altruism, the non-moral and the immoral 
beget the moral, hatred begets love! Did ever a corrupt 
tree bring forth such excellent fruit? 

But these things cannot be. They are contrary to the 
nature of things. They violate the fundamental prin- 
ciples of sound thinking. 


Wuat THE Brirps TEacH ABouT EVOLUTION 


Attention is here called to a fact that seems, in and of 
itself, to disprove the theory of evolution. The advocates 
of this hypothesis maintain that all forms of life have 
evolved progressively from a few simple primordial cells. 
Hence the first forms were simple vegetable forms, then 
came the insects, then the lowest animal forms, and so 
on up to the highest kinds of animals, until finally man 
appeared as the climax. 

According to this program, therefore, the insects ap- 
peared and flourished myriads of years before the birds 
came into existence. Now, if nature was the same then 
as now, the insects would have destroyed all the vegeta- 


172 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


tion long before the advent of the birds; for to-day birds 
are needed to preserve the vegetable world from the 
ravages of the insects. If all the birds were destroyed 
now, in only a few years there would not be a blade of 
grass in our fields nor a leaf on any of our orchards or 
woodlands. Hence, if, in the geological ages, the insects 
appeared ons before the birds, all the vegetation would 
have been destroyed, and the insects themselves would 
have perished for lack of food, and thus never could 
have evolved into the higher forms of animate life. This 
one fact seems to give the fatal blow to the theory of 
evolution. 

However, according to the biblical cosmogony, every- 
thing can be most beautifully explained; for then the 
plants and insects did not appear long ages before the 
birds; moreover, the animal world was not then at war; 
there was no “struggle for existence’; all nature was 
“ood.” Nature’s lapse occurred only after the fall of 
man, her head and crown, as has been previously shown. 

A labored attempt to bolster up the evolution theory 
is made by Dr. J. Arthur Thomson in his book entitled 
The Biology of Birds. If the author would stay by facts 
and avoid speculations, his work would be of much value. 
But he mars his presentation by constantly trying to show 
that the birds have evolved from the reptiles. While he 
is compelled to admit that the bird’s feathers are a 
sphinx’s riddle to the evolutionist, he surmises that they 
may have been evolved from reptilian scales, and then 
proceeds from that assumption as if it were proved. 
Surely such conclusions are far-fetched. 

Just one simple question will quash the theory: ‘Why 
do not reptiles to-day exhibit any tendency to develop 
wings and feathers?” If they do not do so in the present 
advanced state of the world, it is not probable that they 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 173 


ever did. To say that they would do this if they had 
time enough, is both guessing, and begging the question. 
The Christian believes that the avian kingdom affords 
clear and striking evidence of design, and therefore of a 
divine Creator; but in Professor Thomson’s book not 
the slightest intimation of the existence of a divine Being 
is to be found in any of its four hundred and thirty-six 
pages. In one of the present writer’s books he has not 
thus bowed God out of the natural world, but has shown 
clearly that the feet and wings of our feathered neighbors 
afford abundant evidence of teleology; and teleology in 
nature demands a personal God." 


WHENCE CAME THE VITAL GERM? 


Some of the advocates of evolution are fond of quoting 
in support of their theory, the saying of Christ, ‘First 
the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.” 
They also point to Christ’s parables about the mustard 
seed and the leaven. Do not these comparisons proclaim 
growth, progress, evolution? 

Our reply is: No one denies the fact of life and 
growth in both nature and religion. It should be remem- 
bered, however, that life and growth come only after 
the germ of life has been created, and never in any 
other way, as far as we know. The question is not, Will 
a grain of corn grow after it has been formed? but, 
Whence came the first grain? The mustard seed will 
also germinate and grow, given the right conditions; but 
whence came the first mustard seed? So the leaven- 
germ will ferment and expand; but the germ must exist 
before the leavening process can take place. Will the 
champions of evolution maintain that the leaven, the 


"Our Bird Comrades (3d ed.), pp. 180-197. 


174 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


corn grain and the mustard seed came into existence, each 
with its peculiar germ-plasm, by evolution? Will they 
say that the one evolved from the other? Will they hold 
that leaven evolved from non-leaven and living germs 
from non-living matter? They know full well that such 
exploits have never been witnessed in nature. 

A recent proclaimer of evolution observes that we never 
see men and women made outright nowadays; they 
always come from impregnated cells and by a gradual 
process, are born babies, and then develop gradually into 
adults. That is true; but the inference drawn from the 
fact is wrong. No one has ever known a human baby 
to be born except from the conjunction of two adult 
human beings of opposite sexes. Given the parents, a 
child may result; but there can be no baby without 
parents. Now, which came first, the baby or the 
parents? If the baby was made first, who would have 
taken care of it until it was able to care for itself? But 
one baby would not have been enough; two of opposite 
sexes would have had to be made. Then who would have 
taken care of them until they grew to years of puberty? 
Or if you desire to go back still further, how could the 
pregnant germs of a human being have been produced 
and developed into a human child without the sexual 
conjunction of two adult persons of opposite sexes? 

But now let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, 
that God originally created two human beings, a man 
and a woman, just as the Bible narrates; would not all 
the necessary conditions have been fulfilled for their own 
preservation and the procreation of the race? That, 
surely, would have been a good and adequate start, what- 
ever else may be said about it. The same law holds 
throughout the organic world; there must always be a 
fully developed or mature organ before reproduction can 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 175 


take place. It is the law of the cell that it will not 
divide itself, and thus increase life, until it is fully 
matured. Then how came the first living cell? 


SoME More SALIENT POINTS 


Several recent investigators describe for us the re- 
mains of many ancient extinct animals found in various 
parts of the world—Nebraska, Utah, California, and the 
Gobi desert of Mongolia in China. In the last named 
country have been found the eggs of one species of the 
dinosaur family. A recent scientific lecturer showed, by 
means of moving pictures, the fossil remains of many 
gigantic animals lately discovered among the mountains 
of Utah. He also represented some of them as they have 
been “reconstructed” and set up in scientific museums. 
In some cases only the skeletons were shown; in others 
the animals appeared in full form as the scientists have 
rehabilitated them. All these discoveries are interpreted 
to spell evolution. 

But, while we would not for a moment dispute any of 
the facts depicted, the argument for evolution is far from 
persuasive. And why? Because all those ancient animals 
were fully developed, had all the organs needed for 
functioning, and as far as can be discerned from the 
representations of the scientists themselves, they were 
just as complete and complex in their organization as are 
the animals living to-day. The great dinosaur was as 
complex in structure as are the reptiles of the present 
time. In fact, no existing lizards are as large as he was, 
while some other extinct species of the lizard family were 
still larger than he. Then how can evolution be proved 
from these ancient remains? Indeed, they furnish strong 
evidence against the theory. 


176 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Professor J. Howard McGregor, of Columbia Uni- 
versity, recently paid a visit to Dr. Eugene Dubois, the 
famous discoverer of the so-called Trinil Man in Java 
many years ago. Heretofore Dr. Dubois had kept the 
remains under lock and key. But Professor McGregor 
was pa iane to see them and give them “a prolonged 
examination.” But Dubois and McGregor differ in in- 
terpreting the remains. Dr. Dubois believes that their 
Owner was nearer to ape than to man; Professor Mc- 
Gregor holds the contrary view. Are the remains of the 
skull of this creature so meager that these scientists 
cannot agree whether it was nearer to the ape or to man? 
The maximum capacity of the brain of the modern ape 
is six hundred cubic centimeters; the minimum human 
brain capacity known to-day is nine hundred cubic centi- 
meters. But McGregor holds that the cranial capacity 
of the Trinil Man was nine hundred and fifty cubic centi- 
meters. If this is true, why cannot Dr. Dubois see that 
the creature was nearer to man than to the ape? And 
if Professor McGregor is correct in his estimate, the 
Trinil Man had a larger brain than some human beings 
possess to-day. Then how could the Trinil Man have been 
a “missing link” between man and the ape? Why is the 
Trinil Man called an “‘ape man” if he had a larger brain 
than some modern human beings possess? 

A recent statement by Dr. Osborn is enlightening. It 
bears on the subject of brains. He says: 


Our own Nordic race dates back some fifteen hun- 
dred years. . . . Preceding our own race by ten to 
twenty thousand years, was that of the art-loving 
Cro-Magnons, inhabitants of western Europe after 
the glaciers disappeared. The intelligence, the artis- 
tic and spiritual qualities of the Cro-Magnon race 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 177 


are most surprising. With a body like our own and 
a brain as large as ours, if not larger, they were in 
every sense intelligent. Superior individuals of this 
race would have been capable of taking their places 
as senior wranglers in any of our modern universities, 
and may have had an excellent philosophy of life. 


If those ancient peoples, living from twenty-five thou- 
sand to thirty-five thousand years ago, “had as large 
brains as men have to-day, or perhaps larger,’ what 
becomes of the theory of evolution? Why have not 
human brains grown in bulk within the last twenty-five 
centuries? 


How To DEFINE A SPECIES 


A recent writer has challenged the author of this work 
to define a species. He says that the biologist is not as- 
sured “of the reality of such an entity as a species,” and 
does not “know exactly what it is... . The biologist 
conceives of a species as just a group of creatures enough 
alike to be treated together for certain purposes.” 

Here is another grave fault of the evolutionists: they 
merge everything together, see everything in a state of 
flux, and thus lose the sense of distinctions in nature. 
In their anxiety to prove that species become transmuted 
into one another, they fail to see the specific differences 
that nature herself has definitely established. This 
theory, by which the natural world is interpreted, also 
runs up into the higher spheres of thought and experience, 
so that the evolutionist is apt to blur the distinction 
between life and non-life, mind and matter, instinct and 
intelligence, good and evil, God and the world. It is no 
wonder so many evolutionists can see only an “inscrutable 


178 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


power” in the universe. Besides, if everything is in a 
state of flux, and all things are constantly merging into 
one another, there is nothing stable in the world, and 
that makes science itself and scientific classification im- 
possible. It is the differentia in things that makes it pos- 
sible for scientists to classify data. And those differences 
must be fixed and orderly, too, or there can be no science. 

Now how shall we define a species? A species is a 
class of organisms that reproduce true to form and do 
not cross with other types. There may be some excep- 
tional and obscure cases in which it is difficult to decide 
whether the differentiation is one of species or only of 
variety, but in the vast majority of cases the differences 
are clearly marked. In the vegetable world wheat begets 
wheat, not oats or rye; apples reproduce apples, not 
peaches or apricots or oranges. In the bird world cardi- 
nals always mate with cardinals, bluebirds with bluebirds, 
flickers with flickers, robins with robins. In the animal 
world cows breed with cows, horses with horses, cats with 
cats, dogs with dogs, lions with lions. None of these 
distinct species interbreed. Hence it is clear that our 
questioner is in error when he thinks that we cannot 
distinguish among species. . 

Even where species are very much alike they do not 
transgress the fixed boundary lines of their own type. 
To cite concrete examples, there are the downy and the 
hairy woodpeckers; they look very much alike, and are 
much alike in color, form, and habits, the only difference 
being that one is somewhat larger than the other; but 
in spite of the close similarity, they never mix up their 
family affairs. The whippoorwill and the nighthawk, 
both belonging to the goatsucker family, can scarcely be 
distinguished as to color and form except by an expert 
bird student; yet they never cross. Some species of the 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 179 


wood-warblers bear a close resemblance to one another, 
and are often the despair of those who study birds with 
a glass; but they are extremely virtuous little bodies, so 
that not one of them ever resorts to wife-stealing outside 
of its own family. The Magnolia and Blackburnian 
warblers are just as distinct to-day as they were fifty 
years ago when the writer began his avi-faunal studies. 

Most interesting and most beneficial to man is this 
natural law of fixity of type (nowadays called “‘fixism’’). 
If it were not for her stability, man could not depend 
upon nature; she would be utterly unreliable. The 
farmer would not know whether his flock of sheep would 
remain sheep or not, or whether his herd of cattle would 
continue to be cattle. He might sow wheat in the fall, 
and never know until the next summer whether his har- 
vest would consist of wheat or rye. 

On the other hand, how providential is the fact that, 
within many species, there is enough plasticity for the 
breeding of varieties! Thus species may be greatly im- 
proved by human skill and patience. And if man keeps 
his hand on the cultured varieties, he can preserve them 
for many years and generations. When he has “dressed” 
his Eden, he must “keep” it, just as the first man was 
commanded to dress and keep the original Eden. 

The facts, therefore, warrant us in saying that, wher- 
ever a class breeds true to form and keeps within its own 
specific range, there exists a distinctly marked species, 
so intended by Providence; but wherever there is the 
possibility of crossing, there exists a variety, also divinely 
arranged for man’s benefit, in giving him a chance to 
produce useful cultural forms. The ass and the horse 
will cross, and the product is the non-fertile mule, which 
is a most useful animal. If the mule were a breeding 
animal, its usefulness would be greatly diminished. This 


180 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


seems to be a providential arrangement. The same is 
true of our many cultured varieties of grain, fruit, fowls 
and animals, each of which has doubtless been developed 
by man from an inferior stock. 

The writer who has challenged the author to define a 
species declares that “the significance of Darwin lies 
precisely in the denial of the whole notion of immutable 
species of beings which procreate each ‘after its kind.’ ” 

If that is true, why do earthworms always reproduce 
their own kind? Why do oysters give birth only to 
oysters and never to lobsters? There are some species 
of sea-weeds and animalcule which existed far back in 
the geological ages, whose progeny to-day is precisely 
the same in kind as that of their remote forebears. Does 
not that point to the fact that there are “immutable” 
types? 

This same writer says that groups never reproduce 
exactly “after their kind.” He refers to individual varia- 
tions. But he overlooks the fact that, while individuals 
differ in certain ways, there are always specific and gen- 
eral resemblances which clearly indicate the group to 
which they belong. Certainly no one mistakes a cow 
for a horse or a crow for a humming bird. The ornith-_ 
ologist has no difficulty in distinguishing the cowbird 
from the red-winged blackbird. He would soon betray 
his lack of training in field-work were he to mistake the 
redstart for the chestnut-sided warbler. Scientists should 
see nature as she is, instead of through the colored glasses 
of speculation. 

That individuals of the same species differ somewhat 
is self-evident. This is also a providential arrangement. 
If all horses looked precisely alike, the farmer would not 
know which horse to hitch to the plow and which to the 
carriage. No; the realm of nature is not in a constantly 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 181 


merging state, flowing along without useful and necessary 
distinctions. It has just enough of both stability and 
pliancy to prove that God made it to be a comfortable 
abode for man. 

One cannot help feeling grateful that a good Provi- 
dence has established such an economy of rationally 
balanced fixism and plasticity in the organic realm. Were 
everything in a state of flux, not only would science be 
impossible, but it is doubtful whether human life itself 
would be tolerable. What a welter this world would be 
if animals were constantly emerging into the human 
status! Even the evolutionist would be dismayed, we 
fancy, were he to go out into the forest and find some 
creatures one-fourth human, others one-half human, 
others three-fourths human, and so on, with all the inter- 
mediate grades. And what would civilized nations do 
with all the millions of morons, imbeciles and semi- 
imbeciles? Could we leave them in the forests and 
jungles to perish miserably? Would we not owe them 
humanitarian care? And how difficult it would be to tell 
just when they had rational souls? 

Suppose we were to bring them into our civilized com- 
munities; we would indeed have many perplexing prob- 
lems on our hands. Should we place our partially human 
protégés in jails, or in asylums, or in hospitals, or in 
our schools and universities? Such a “white man’s 
burden” would be a vastly greater problem than is our 
present race problem or that of eugenics. 

We should indeed be thankful that such a fearsome 
regimen does not obtain. It is obvious that stability of 
type is the divinely ordained order, and a beneficent one 
it is; while some degree of elasticity within the type 
(species) is no less rational and necessary. 

Perhaps the evolutionist will smile at the foregoing 


182 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


delineation. But we would kindly inquire, Why, if evo- 
lution is the dominant law of nature, is such a supposition 
absurd? Besides, it is difficult to see how the law of 
evolution, which is a law of change, could give rise to 
its precise opposite, the law of stability. We cannot help 
believing that, if ever evolution was operative, it ought 
to be operative now, and that if it is, there should be 
many intermediate grades between the bestial and the 
human. However, we are most grateful that it does not 
continue to function, if it ever did. The biblical economy 
is the only rational one; namely, that God created the 
animals to be animals and to remain animals, while He 
made men to be human and to stay human. 


Stitt ANOTHER NON SEQUITUR 


A writer for the New York World recently commented 
on some supposed mistakes of the late Mr. Bryan. He 
tried to make it appear that these blunders were quite 
schoolboyish. Having no brief for Mr. Bryan, or any 
authority to defend his memory, we leave that privilege 
to others. Only it should be said that his critic picked 
up a few small technical errors, and made an unwarranted 
to do over them. It may be well to see whether the critic 
himself does not live in a glass house. 

He accused Mr. Bryan of saying that “no species has 
ever been traced to another species.” Then he declared 
that “Mr. Luther Burbank smiles at such assertions, for 
he is creating new species out of older species right 
along.” Of course, Mr. Bryan meant that no new species 
has ever emerged from another species through natural 
evolution; which is true. But the reference to Mr. Bur- 
bank is not a happy one; for his artificial culture of 
plants and flowers is far from proof that nature left to 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 183 


herself would ever produce the remarkable results which 
he has obtained. Moreover, what would become of all 
his cultivated varieties if they were left to nature’s own 
forces for fifty or a hundred years? Would she preserve 
and perpetuate them and evolve them into still higher 
forms? Every one will agree she would not. 

Then the critic refers to “the wonderful story of 
Marquis wheat,” which is raised in Canada. The process 
by which it was produced is really most interesting. The 
male parent, red fife, came from mid-Europe; the female 
parent, “hard red Calcutta,” was imported from India. 
Dr. Charles E. Saunders “crossed the two imported 
species and obtained a medley of types, which he assorted, 
and from which he selected the most promising.” 

Note the special care with which the experimenter 
assorted and selected his material. We quote from the 
article: “Each of the heads selected was propagated; 
most of the results were rejected; the rest were sifted 
again and yet again; and finally Marquis wheat emerged, 
rich in constructive possibilities, probably the most valu- 
able food-plant in the world.” Then our champion of 
evolution concludes: “So here at least is one species 
which came from another species, not in the ancient times, 
but since Mr. Bryan has been in the limelight.” 

And this, the writer thinks, proves the doctrine of 
natural evolution! But a little critical acumen should be 
used in drawing conclusions. Observe in the above quo- 
tation how the human manipulator “selected,” “rejected,” 
“elected” and “‘sifted again and yet again.” Could nature 
herself have performed such exploits of carefully calcu- 
lated scientific selection, all of it done with a distinct 
purpose, working to a distinct end, and designed by a 
human experimenter? Is it likely that nature, left to 
her own way, would ever have brought “red fife” from 


184 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


mid-Europe and “hard red Calcutta” from India over to 
Ottawa, Canada, and then effected the scientific combina- 
tions made by Dr. Saunders? Only a man with a per- 
fervid imagination could make himself believe that nature 
would have ever performed such an exploit. 

And, again, what would become of Marquis wheat 
were it left to itself for half a century? The answer is 
self-evident—it would either perish or revert to an 
inferior type. Besides, even in this case no distinct 
species was produced. The parents were not two differ- 
entiated species, but both were wheat, not something else, 
and their offspring is, therefore, only a cultivated variety. 

The opponents of evolution do not deny that human 
genius produces wonderful results in nature. By the 
careful and painstaking study and use of natural sub- 
stances and forces man has been able to construct the 
telephone. Would nature herself have ever constructed 
a telephone? As has been previously shown, man’s 
capacity for improving nature is recognized in the Bible, 
and thus his genius in this direction confirms its 
teaching. 

The author ventures to inject a thought here that has 
occurred to him since the foregoing was written. It is 
suggested for judicial consideration. It is said that 
Burbank has taken the common desert cactus, and has 
converted it, by careful cultural treatment, into a fairly 
edible plant. Now, it may be that all such instances of 
man’s ability to tame wild species and make them useful 
are indicia that, in their original created state, they were 
good and serviceable, as is taught in the first chapter of 
Genesis, and that they still retain the genetic potentialities 
for being restored. Perhaps this is a hint of the coming 
time of “‘the restitution of all things.” The prophet fore- 
casts an era when there shall be nothing hurtful “in all 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 185 


God’s holy mountain”; ® and the apostle declares that 
“the creation itself shall be delivered from the bondage 
of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of 
God.” ® There are certainly promises in God’s Word 
of a time when man shall have complete dominion over 
the realm of nature. Instead, therefore, of looking for 
evolution in nature’s domain, perhaps it would be wiser 
and more scientific to look for restoration. 


THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE 


The American Museum of Natural History, New 
York, has issued a Guide Leaflet 1° in which the authors 
have obviously put their best foot forward. The work 
is very technical, and teems with polysyllables and 
difficult terminology. This is, of course, as it should be, 
for we cannot have science without nomenclature de- 
rived from fixed languages, and Latin and Greek are 
the best languages upon which we can draw; but we 
would remind people that when Christian theology, which 
is also a science, uses such technical terms, no objec- 
tion should be raised by those who want to be considered 
scientific. 

Some evolutionists think that the argument for the 
development of the horse is the strongest argument that 
can be brought forward for the general theory. Our 
recollection is that Huxley so regarded it, and looked 
upon it as absolutely proved. Of course, if it could be 
shown to be valid, the anti-evolutionists might as well 
give up their case. 

We must, therefore, be all the more careful in our 
testing of the statements of this pamphlet. To our mind, 


* Isa. xi.g °Rom. viii.21. 
ihe Matthews and Chubb, The Evolution of the Horse. 


186 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


its presentation is far from convincing, and in some 
aspects seems to be impossible; and we shall try to show 
why. We begin with this statement: “The Hyraco- 
therium is the most primitive stage known; but only the 
skull has been found, so that it has not been determined 
exactly what the feet were like.” ** 

Let it be remembered that the theory is this: The 
original ancestor of the, modern horse was a small crea- 
ture with a number of toes on each foot which, in the 
course of millions of years, became consolidated into a 
hoof. Our scientists say in the above quotation that 
“only the skull” of the primitive creature has been found. 
Then they do not know “exactly” what the feet were 
like. Do they know at all what they were like? How 
can they know if only the skull has been found? Yet 
they build their theory upon the asswmption that its feet 
were of just the right kind to be evolved into the next 
member of the series! Thus the hypothesis is built upon 
a guess for which there is a very meager foundation. 
Is that science—“‘verified knowledge”’? 

Another serious difficulty arises at this point. The 
only known specimens of Hyracotherium were found in 
the London Clay or Lower Eocene in England. The de- 
scendant of this creature next in the series as far as dis- 
covered is Eohippus, which, say the authors, is “much 
better known.” But where were the fossils of Eohippus 
found? In Wyoming and New Mexico—that is, in the 
western part of the United States. Yet Eohippus is sup- 
posed to be the scion of the English breed. Such an in- 
ference demands a great stretch of the imagination. How 
the little English creature and his offspring made the 
journey over land and sea to America deponent sayeth 
not. Are such suppositions to be regarded as “‘science’’? 


4 Ibid., p. 15. 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 187 


And are people who are skeptical of inferences so drawn 
to be scorned as ‘“abysmally ignorant’? 

_ The front foot of Eohippus had four toes and the hind 
foot three, while “‘the splints of the first and fifth digits 
can still be detected in some species.” 

Observe the word “still.” This must mean that, while 
only the skull of the first member of the series, as has 
been said, was found—so that no one knows what its 
feet were like—yet it is assumed that it had five toes 
on its hind feet, of which the “splints” in the feet of 
Eohippus are vestiges. Here we have a case of the non 
sequitur almost with a vengeance. 

Difficulties multiply: ‘The earliest known ancestors 
of the horse were small animals not larger than a domestic 
cat,” etc. 

In their study of natural history in the empirical 
fashion, do scientists know of a single species or kind 
of animal that increases in size in the way this progenitor 
of the horse is supposed to have increased? Is it not 
true that each type maintains its regular or normal size, 
with only comparatively slight variations? Who can 
prove that nature once operated in so different a fashion 
from what she does now? If animals once increased in 
bulk in that way, they should do so now, and we ought 
to see cattle, horses, elephants and other creatures con- 
stantly adding to their dimensions. But we know that 
such things do not occur. 

Drs. Matthews and Chubb tell us that Eohippus was 
‘not larger than a domestic cat.’ Dr. Vernon Kellogg, 
in his Evolution, says that it ‘“‘was a little larger than a 
fox.” Which is right? If the scientists have the actual 
fossil remains at hand, why is there a difference in the 
reported size of Eohippus? 

This pristine creature had a good supply of toes— 


188 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


four on each fore foot, three on each hind foot. Kellogg 
says that they were “hoofed toes.” Now, to our mind, 
the crucial question is: How can the scientists account 
for the evolution of so well-equipped an animal away back 
in the Lower Eocene epoch? How came he to have four 
toes on each front foot and three on each hind foot? 
He was certainly quite a complex animal. It would seem 
that so many toes would involve a good deal of previous 
evolution. However, as has been seen, a guess is made 
by the scientists that Hohippus had an ancestor—Hyra- 
cotherium—which was still better supplied with toes, 
because Eohippus has some “splints of the first and fifth 
digits,” which are supposed to be vestiges of his five-toed 
predecessor. But how came this ancestor to have so large 
a supply of toes? Did he have an ancestor with six toes? 

Let us also do some guessing. Might this have been. 
the line of progress? In remote times there was an 
ancestor which had only one toe on each foot; then this 
toe evolved into two, three, four and five toes respec- 
tively; then evolution took a reverse turn; having evolved 
five toes, it began a back-track development toward only 
one toe. Which case was evolution and which devolution? 

But we must ply the scientist with more questions. If 
Eohippus could walk comfortably on his feet as they 
were, why did he have to make any change? What ad- 
vantage would there have been in reducing the number 
of his toes? Again, if walking on the flat of his foot 
was his natural mode of locomotion, why would he 
begin to walk on the tips of his toes, which would have 
been a painful way of walking? Of if one animal 
was determined to walk on the tips of his toes, why 
would all his offspring continue the laborious process 
for a million years? Do we see animals performing 
such exploits to-day? Since historic time began, we do 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 189 


not know of an animal species that has lost a single one 
of its toes. 

If Eohippus, as Dr. Kellogg says, had “hoofed toes,” 
it must have been natural for him to walk on those hoofs. 
Then what could have caused any change? Why would 
the toes have had any tendency to grow together? Was 
not the animal in accord with his environment? If 
locomotion on his hoofed toes was not normal for the 
creature, why was he evolved in that way in the first 
place? It would seem that he should have been a one- 
hoofed animal from the start. 

Was not a creature with three and four toes on one foot 
a higher type of development than a creature with only 
one toe? Would not a number of toes, cleanly parted, be 
harder to evolve than only one toe or a solid hoof? Why 
did evolution take so roundabout a way? And then, if 
an animal kept walking and running on his cleft toes, 
how could they ever grow together? They would surely 
be constantly pressing apart. The sheep and the cow 
divide the hoof, and have done so from time immemorial. 
Their hoofs show no proclivity for growing into solid 
hoofs. Why is it that only one line—the Equus family— 
has the tendency to develop a solid hoof? 

However, we must be fair. Most of the evolutionists 
do not think that the digits of the horse’s ancestors be- 
came consolidated into a hoof. Some of the toes were 
sloughed off through disuse, while the middle toe, which 
had to perform the chief duty, became enlarged into a 
broad and solid hoof. Well, let us consider that propo- 
sition. We must use our imagination a little. Suppose 
that Eohippus had four hoofed toes on each fore foot. He 
must have walked on all four of them or they never would 
have been evolved into useful hoofs. But if he walked 
on all four, none of them could have begun to shrink. As 


190 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


long as they were in use, they would have remained in- 
tact, according to the law of evolution itself. 

Or suppose some of the toes were shorter at the start 
than the rest; how did they become shorter? What could 
have led evolution to reduce them? Would not that 
shortening have made the animal walk unsteadily? Or if 
not that, as the shorter toes were evidently needed to pre- 
serve the animal’s balance when his weight pressed down 
hard on the middle toes, the shorter toes would still have 
been needed for that purpose, and therefore evolution 
would require that they remain short toes. Had they 
become shorter and shorter, the process would have cer- 
tainly been a handicap to the animal. It is not probable, 
either, from what we know of nature’s processes, that the 
middle toes would have increased through use, for all 
animals to-day use some parts of their bodily structure 
more than others, but those parts do not show a tendency 
to develop into larger and larger dimensions, while the 
less used parts disappear. We have no scientific right to 
say that nature’s processes were different millions of years 
ago—when no one could observe them—from what they 
are to-day when men can observe them. The small “false 
hoofs” of most split-hoofed animals are called “non- 
functional”; yet they show no disposition to disappear. 
Why should the non-functional toes of Eohippus, if he 
had any, have disappeared? 

Note these statements, referring to Eohippus: 


The proportions of the skull, the short neck and 
arched back, and the limbs of moderate length, were 
very little horselike—recalling, on the contrary, some 
modern carnivorous animals, especially the civets 
(Viverride). The teeth were short-crowned and 
covered with rounded knobs of enamel, suggesting 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION tor 


those of the monkeys and pigs or other omnivorous 
animals, but not at all like the long-crowned compli- 
cated grinders of the horse.*” 


One would think from these frank admissions that the 
evolutionists are going far out of their way to establish 
the pedigree of the modern equine. Is it not a far cry 
from the horse back to a creature so much unlike itself? 
We do not see nature achieving such metamorphoses 
to-day; rather, we find stability of type to be the rule; 
therefore the so-styled evolution of the horse lacks scien- 
tific verification. One of the main contentions of the 
evolutionists is ‘the uniformity of nature’s processes.” 
Why, then, did nature act so differently millions of years 
ago from what she does now? 

The claim is made that the horse’s hoof has splints 
which seem to be vestiges from remote predecessors. 
We do not see why they should be regarded as vestiges. 
They may be the necessary constituents of the horse’s 
hoof, to give it some degree of elasticity. It stands 
to reason that even a horse’s hoof should have some 
spring to it. 

But HEohippus had a number of successors, called 
Orohippus, Mesohippus, Protohippus, etc. These have 
been so serially arranged by the scientists as to convey 
the impression that they gradually lost their outer toes, 
while the middle digit increased in size and became com- 
pacted into a solid hoof, such as the modern horse 
possesses. 

The difficulties of this hypothesis seem to be insuper- 
able, chiefly because hundreds of thousands, sometimes 
millions, of years are said to have elapsed between the 
several members of the series. Besides, the fossils of the 

“Matthews and Chubb, The Evolution of the Horse, p. 15. 


192 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


different species were found in geographical regions far 
distant from one another. None of the intermediate 
grades have ever been found. ‘Thus it is impossible to 
make out the case for evolution from the data at hand. 
Frankly, it all seems to be impossible. If Eohippus and 


the rest ever really existed, it is most probable that they, — 


like all animals known to-day, procreated after their kind. 
Like so many other ancient denizens of our globe, they 


became extinct—no one knows why—and left no genetic — 


successors. 


Tue TEDIUM OF EVOLUTION 


To speak plainly, albeit without scorn, evolution is 


too slow, too non-progressive. Let us “mark time” with | 


its tedious ways. It took a million years (perhaps many 
more) for the amcba to develop into a mollusk; then 
a million more for the mollusk to evolve into a fish with 
a backbone; a million more to evolve an amphibian; 
another million to evolve a reptile; how many more mil- 
lions for a reptile to evolve into a bird no one knows, 
some more millions to develop a mammal; more tedious 
millions to reach the anthropoid apes; and something over 


a million for man’s ancestors to “learn to walk on their — 


hind legs” (Van Loon). A good many hundred thou- 


sand years were then consumed in evolving genus homo; 
and even he continues to commit numberless logical and 
ethical blunders! Worst of all, God is held responsible 


for the whole humdrum procedure. For our part, we think — 
that six to ten or twenty thousand years would be ample ~ 
for the development of the world to its present poor — 
status. Even as it is, we are sometimes impelled to ex- 


claim, “How long, O Lord; how long?” 


7a a 


Suppose men and animals have been on the earth ten } 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 193 


thousand years. Would not that be plenty long enough 
for God to bring the world to its present state of de- 
velopment? Surely it should not take Him very long to 
make mechanisms which have no free will of their own. 
An animal begins its life with an impregnated cell. Ina 
few months it is born, and a few days later it may be 
skipping friskly about. A fertilized egg becomes a lively 
chick in four or five weeks. Even a human being, be- 
ginning with a cell, grows into a matured person in 
twenty-five years. Many of nature’s processes are rea- 
sonably rapid. ‘That affords an analogical reason for 
believing that man, too, may make rapid progress if he 
will. If evolution is the law, however, several more 
millions of years will be consumed in bringing in the era 
of the “superman” or the super-race. 

But if the human race started ten to twenty thousand 
years ago, why is it that it has taken God even that long 
to lead man thus far on the road of progress? Because 
man is a free moral agent. Therefore his will must 
always be taken into consideration. If God does not want 
to destroy man’s moral agency, He must permit him to 
have a degree of liberty. God could make mechanisms 
in short order, and could quickly develop them to any 
degree of perfection He might choose; but with Him the 
difficult problem (we speak reverently) is to develop 
moral beings in the highway of progress without nullify- 
ing their freedom. Thus God has a valid reason for 
bearing with the sluggishness with which mankind moves 
forward. But there is absolutely no good reason, moral 
or otherwise, for His consuming ages on ages in making 
mere mechanisms, and especially in evolving man from 
the ameeba to the point where it becomes a real moral 
agent. How could God find delight in sitting by and 
watching so dreary and prolonged a process? 


194 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


THE OVERDONE VESTIGE THEORY 


An excellent little book, entitled Two Great Bible Plans 
Paralleled, by a well-informed physician, Dr. J. K. Miller, 
deals effectively with the so-called vestige theory. As 
a physician, with a technical knowledge of human 
anatomy and physiology, he tells us about the nature and 
functions of the vermiform appendix, and shows how 
unscientific it is to regard it as a relique of man’s animal 
pedigree. Let Dr. Miller speak for himself: 


As an example of more recent proof of man’s ani- 
mal ancestry, the appendix is brought forward as 
evidence more frequently than any other so-called 
vestigial part or appendage. A recent authority 
asserts that man’s progenitors lived on roots and 
barks of trees. These, to become digestible, must 
needs go through a sort of macerating process. An 
extra stomach for the purpose was thus necessary. 
The bovine and other quid-chewing animals—from 
which the scientist gets his idea—have a similar 
physical mechanism. As man became more civilized, 
his food changed to a higher order for which this 
special process was not needed. Hence this par- 
ticular stomach on account of disuse became 
atrophied, and the appendix is the relic or vestige. 

This is theory only, for the facts will not support 
it. The facts are these: ‘The appendix is twenty 
feet 1° from the normal present-day human stomach 
where food is received. Between the two organs is 
an intestinal tube of comparatively small caliber, 

*% Feeling a little skeptical of Dr. Miller’s figures (twenty feet), we 
wrote him regarding them. He replied: “Twenty feet is correct. Food, 


leaving the stomach, travels that far before it reaches the appendix 
region.” 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 195 


whose lumen grows less toward the lower or distal 
end. Practically all the nutrient elements of food 
are digested and taken up as they pass through this 
portion of the digestive tract. Moreover, this tube 
does not end in the appendix, nor has it any direct 
connection therewith. It empties its remaining con- 
tents in the colon or large bowel. This entrance is 
made through the side of the large intestine several 
inches from the end to which the appendix is at- 
tached. This anatomical arrangement makes it 
impossible for the appendix to receive the coarse 
fiber of roots and barks as a laboratory for their 
preparation for further digestion and assimilation. 
It is at the wrong end of the digestive apparatus. 
The theory is puerile, and will not hold. 


While we think of it, we must add that the cattle of 
our vicinity which chew the cud do not eat the tough 
fibers of bark and roots, but the softest and lushest kind 
of grass that grows in the green pasture fields. On the 
other hand, some dogs of the neighborhood devour tough 
meat and crack hard bones and swallow them, and yet 
they do not have a secondary stomach, but get along 
very well with only one. And so have their forebears 
been doing all through the ages. The chickens and birds, 
some of which eat coarse and hard food, manage very 
well with a single craw or gizzard. It would seem, as a 
matter of fact, that the ruminants are the animals that 
eat the softest and most easily digested foods. Evidently 
their second stomachs have been given them for a differ- 
ent reason than that which has been assigned by the 
purveyors of evolution, proving once again how facts 
must be strained to the breaking point in order to bolster 
up a weak theory. 


106 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Dr. Miller also gives a telling blow to another much- 
overdone factor among the propounders of evolution: 


A recent work on science—four volumes; one of 
the latest authorities—accounts for the absence of 
hair on the human body through the use of clothing. 
When clothing came in vogue, the body was wrapped 
with skins, while the legs, arms and head remained 
exposed; hence the excess of hair on these parts, 
while the body has scarcely more than a hirsute 
covering. However, the facts are that the cleanest 
bodies in the world are found in the tropical coun- 
tries, where no clothing is worn save the breech- 
cloth, underneath which is found the only hair 
present on the body. 

[Again our author replies in this way to the claims 
of the aforesaid ‘latest authorities’ in science] 
The bald heads, now so common, they attribute to 
the wearing of hats. However, the bald head is seen 
quite as commonly, if not more frequently, in the 
office, the store and the counting room where hats 
are worn but an hour or two a day, while the farmer 
and day laborer, whose heads are covered many 
hours a day, very generally have an abundant 
growth. Hats may be one of the causes, but all 
too frequently there are other causes which must be 
held responsible, as every physician knows. 


At every point, it would seem, the evolutionist’s theory 
has a hard struggle for existence. 
THe DoLEFUuL OUTLOOK OF SOME EVOLUTIONISTS 


It is obvious that some of the devotees of evolution do 
not have a very encouraging outlook. They contem- 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION 107 


plate the future of the race with more or less foreboding. 
A monograph, written by Carroll Lane Fenton and en- 
‘titled The Building of the Earth, is most informing. The 
author is an out-and-out evolutionist, and indulges in a 
good deal of scoffing at those who do not fall in with 
his views. His book shows how scientific opinion has 
shifted regarding the nebular hypothesis, which at one 
time was generally accepted among scientists. He proves 
definitely that it is no longer tenable. He brings forward 
an argument for the planetesimal theory, which seems to 
him to be more reasonable, but which impresses us as 
being made up of many improbable surmises. One can- 
not help wondering whether the earth was really formed 
in that peculiar way. However, for the present we have 
no criticism to pronounce on the theory. 

Our purpose now is to call attention to the lugubrious 
note sounded by the evolutionist regarding the future of 
the human race. One would naturally think that such a 
long-drawn-out process as evolution would have a bright 
and felicitous outcome. If it does not, what is the use of 
it all? Well may we exclaim, Cui bono? Let us hear 
what our evolutionist has to say on this point: 


And now we come to the question of purpose: a 
question that must ever rise in the human mind as it 
seeks to grasp the facts discovered by science. And 
by those facts, and the conditions which they dis- 
close, we are baffled. We are no longer able to as- 
sume, in our limitless egotism, that all things were 
made for the welfare and pleasure of man; that the 
sun was created to furnish him light and heat by 
day, while the moon and stars were placed in the 
sky to provide light and beauty at night. 


Seeing that man is the highest being living on this mun- 


198 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


dane sphere, we can conceive of no other reason for the 
light and beauty of the heavenly bodies than that they 
were made for his benefit. If they were not, why were 
they made? Why should it be looked upon as “limitless 
egotism” for man, a sentient, self-conscious and rational 
being, to desire to glorify God and enjoy Him and His 
marvelous universe forever? Surely it would be no mark 
of greatness or humility for him to want to live on this 
earth for a few years and then perish forever. 

Our author next employs some long sentences 
in describing the process by which all life was evolved 
through countless ages until man finally emerged. Then 
he continues: 

Finally, after the passage of almost unmeasurable 
ages, man appeared, and began to assume the center 
of activity on the stage of life. Slowly, it seems, 
yet in reality with almost incredible swiftness, he 
progressed until his domination over other animals 
is almost complete. In the years to come he may 
carry on his advancement to almost unbelievable 
heights, or by failing to control and direct his own 
evolution, he may fail, as other creatures have failed, 
and go down the swift path to extinction. But 
whether he triumphs or fails, the processes of the. 
universe will go on, and some day the end will come. 
Eventually the light of the sun will die out, or the 
planets will be torn to fragments by the attraction of 
a passing star. The solar system will pass into 
oblivion, and the purpose of its existence, if indeed 
there is a purpose, will remain forever unknown. 


Here the pitiful tale ends. It is a real “sob story.” 
After advocating the great and salutary doctrine of evolu- 


PERTINENT POINTS ON EVOLUTION § 199 


tion over many pages, and flinging many abusive epithets 
at people who do not accept it, this is the author’s dismal 
‘finis! Over it all is inscribed, “Ichabod!” And yet its 
advocates assert over and over again that all ‘“progres- 
sive” people accept the theory of evolution. Unmeasured 
ages of evolution, and then—the bursting of a bubble, 
the sizzle of a skyrocket! 

Another emotional evolutionist arrives at. practically 
the same conclusion as does Mr. Fenton. We refer to 
Professor Raymond C. Osburn, of the Department of 
Zoology and Entomology in the Ohio State University. 
Mark the final destiny which he predicts for the human 
family.14 The Foraminifera—a class of protozoa (first 
living forms)—continue to this day, he says, and so have 
outlived the great dinosaurs by millions of years. Then 
he adds: ‘‘Man, who has been on the earth only a mere 
half million years or so, has scarcely been given a fair 
trial to prove his fitness, and the probabilities are that the 
foraminifera will continue to flourish long after man has 
definitely proved his inability to cope with changing 
conditions.” 

In contrast with these depressing forecasts, suppose 
we place the teaching of the Holy Scriptures: “Jesus 
Christ hath brought life and immortality to light through 
the gospel”; “For we know that if our earthly house of 
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, 
an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”; 
“All things work together for good to them that love God, 
to them that are the called according to His purpose”; 
“To an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that 
fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept 


4 Some Common Misconceptions of Evolution, p. 185. 


200 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to 
be revealed in the last time”; ‘“‘Nevertheless, according to 
His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, 
wherein dwelleth righteousness.” 


CHAPTER X 
THE CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS 


Sometimes it is charged that Christian people have 
been compelled to reverse themselves more than once in 
the face of scientific discoveries; therefore it is assumed 
that they are mistaken to-day in upholding the doctrine 
of special creations, and will eventually have to accept 
the hypothesis of evolution. The change of position 
among Christian people in regard to the Copernican the- 
ory of the solar system is invariably cited by these 
accusers. 

No one will deny that theologians have sometimes had 
to change their conceptions about some things. The fact 
that they have done so proves that they are not so con- 
servative as to be unwilling to accept evidence when it 
becomes convincing. But that surely cannot mean that 
they must shift their position for every wind that blows. 


THE PTOLEMAIC AND COPERNICAN VIEWS 


Christian theologians, however, are not the only peo- 
ple who have had to change their views before advancing 
knowledge. How often has science been forced to reverse 
itself? For many centuries practically all scientists held 
to the Ptolemaic theory of the universe. They had 
worked it out to a degree of minuteness that was ingenious 
and wonderful. All of us remember about their cycles 
and epicycles. Aristotle, the philosopher, engaged vigor- 

201 


202 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS’ 


ously in this high kind of theorizing. And so it went on 
for centuries, until the coming of Copernicus and Gali- 
leo. Even in their time many scientists scouted the new 
hypothesis, and held it to be impossible and absurd. The 
renowned Swedish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who lived a 
century after Copernicus, wrote a learned treatise against 
the Copernican theory. But the scientists finally had to 
accept the new views, just as did the churchmen. It was 
to the credit of both of them that they were persuaded 
by convincing evidence. It is also to the credit of both 
that they clung to the old views until the new views were 
validated. 


PuysioLocy, Brotocy, PHysics AND CHEMISTRY 


When Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood, 
the scientists were forced to give up many of their out- 
grown theories of physiology and fall in with the new 
facts. In chemistry, physics, biology and embryology 
what a shifting of theories has characterized the scientific — 
world! A textbook on these subjects that is ten years old 
cannot be used in colleges and universities to-day. The 
discovery of steam and electricity as motor forces revolu- 
tionized the views of the physicists in many respects. 
That infant science, biology, has caused many revolutions 
of viewpoint among the scientists. In his day Charles 
Lyell said: “The French Institute enumerated not less 
than eighty geological theories which were hostile to the 
Scriptures; but not one of these theories is held to-day.” 


THE NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS 


But note the shifting of position that has taken place 
within the memory of many people now living. In our 


CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS 203 


college days the nebular hypothesis was generally held. 
It seemed as if almost every person of intelligence ac- 
- cepted it. The theologians were wont to prove, by an 
elaborate argument, that the Bible and the nebular 
hypothesis were in the most perfect agreement. The 
writer confesses that he himself often joined the recon- 
cilers. To-day the theory is held by many scientists to 
be inadequate. Too many facts are against it. The so- 
called planetesimal hypothesis is much in favor at pres- 
ent, and promises to supplant the other. The inadequacy 
of the nebular hypothesis is ably set forth in The Evolu- 
tion of the Earth and Its Inhabitants whose composite 
authorship consists of five professors of Yale University. 
The first chapter, entitled “The Origin of the Earth,” 
written by Professor Joseph Barrell, deals with the rela- 
tive merits of the nebular and the planetesimal hypoth- 
eses, and exposes the weakness of the former. 


AToMs, ETHER AND DARWINISM 


Note, too, the shiftings of the physicists. Time was 
when the atom was regarded as the ultimate particle of 
matter. It was thought that the “atomic and molecular” 
theory of matter was settled once for all. And how 
eruditely scientists talked about the atoms! But nowa- 
days science has changed its viewpoint, declaring that the 
atom is not small enough to be the ultimate particle of 
matter; it is composed of electrons; and it requires many 
thousands of these smaller particles to form the various 
kinds of atoms. 

Once, too, the Universal Ether—the so-called Ether of 
Space—was regarded by the scientists as the substratum 
of all palpable substances, the connecting link in all space, 
and the purveyor of gravitation. But nowadays even 


204 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


the existence of this Ether is doubted by many scientists. 
Indeed, many of them are denying that matter is an entity 
at all; what seems to be palpable substance is not real 
matter, but is composed of centers of electrical or some 
other kind of energy—as if nothing could be endued with 
force and become phenomenal! The fact is, at present 
the physicists and chemists are “all at sea” regarding 
the nature and composition of material substance. In 
fact, human science seems to be in an extremely fluid state. 
The direction of to-morrow’s breezes no one can foretell. 

Another change of front has recently taken place among 
the evolutionists, who so often assert that their theory 
has been “established beyond a doubt.” In our college 
days Darwinism was the fashionable cult among the scien- 
tists who accepted the theory of evolution. Natural and 
sexual selection, the struggle for existence and the sur- 
vival of the fittest were the shibboleths of that day, and 
were sufficient to account for every phenomenon in the 
organic world, given a few primordial germs to start with. 
To-day Darwinism as an explanation of the evolutionary 
process has been cast overboard, and by the scientists 
themselves. Scott, Bateson, Osborn, Conklin and Keen 
tell us so in decided terms. Says Professor James H. 
Robinson: “Darwinism, as understood by paleontologists, 
is as dead as . . . Senator Rush of Kentucky would care 
to see it.” Dr. William H. Keen, another advocate of 
evolution, agrees with this dictum, and complains that 
some uninformed people to-day ‘“‘confuse evolution with 
Darwinism.” This is another decided somersault in the 
world of science. 

Not long ago the favorite claim among many scientists 
was that man has descended from the monkey. Then 
they said, no, not the monkey! the ape, the anthropoid 
ape! But now such a view is called intolerable; man 


CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS 205 


has not descended or ascended from any known monkey 
or ape; man and the simians trace their pedigree back 
' to an unknown animal, the Primate, which is their com- 
mon ancestor. This makes the theory much more palata- 
ble, because it pushes the origin of the human race far 
back into the region of the unknown! Only the scientists 
seem to forget that, if this new theory is true, man came 
from an animal still lower in the scale than the present- 
day monkeys and apes. Here is another reversal on the 
part of the scientists. 


Wuyvy Man Mape Procress AND Apes Dip Not 


In reply to the question why the humanoid members 
of the primate stock back in the dim past became progres- 
sive, while the apes, monkeys, and baboons remained con- 
servative and stationary, Dr. W. K. Gregory, of the 
American Museum of Natural History, has this to say: 
“Tt is safe to assume that the action of glandular secre- 
tions in the humanoid stock, particularly the pituitary 
gland, was responsible for the rapid brain development 
and other structural changes, the erect posture, shorter 
teeth, speech, and other characteristics that distinguish 
man from the ape.” ? 

However, another professor of science attempts to give 
quite a different explanation of the origin of komo sapiens. 
Professor H. H. Lane, of the department of Zodlogy in 
the University of Kansas, has written a book entitled 
Evolution and Christian Faith. What is his theory of 
the cause of the progressive movement of the humanoid 
stock? He finds it in primeval man’s assumption of the 
upright position and the free use of his hands. He says 
it was a momentous day in human history when the “‘pre- 


+ McClure’s Magazine, March, 1923, p. 24. 


206 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


man adopted the upright position, and thus liberated his 
hands for uses other than locomotion. . . . All civiliza- 
tion has inevitably come from manual dexterity.” 

On such slender guesses some of the scientists hang 
their view of the origin of man. We would ask, Why 
and how did the pre-man begin to assume the upright 
position, while his cousins, the apes and monkeys, did not 
do so then, and have never done so since? However, our 
chief point is that Professor Lane differs widely from Dr. 
Gregory in guessing why and how primitive man started 
on the upward path of progress—one says it was due to 
the pituitary gland; the other to the assumption of the 
upright position. These widely variant guesses prove 
that neither knows anything definite about the causes of 
man’s development. 

Another theorizer who seems to have a new idea of the 
process by which the anthropoid ancestor developed into 
man is Professor James Y. Simpson, of New College, 
Edinburgh, Scotland.? According to him, it happened in 
the western section of the plateau of Thibet, not in Meso- 
potamia or Babylonia, as most scientists have held here- 
tofore. Due to the uplift of the Himalayas, the forests 
dried up. This condition compelled the primitive ances- 
tors of men and apes to descend to the ground, which was 
man’s “first call to rise.” The anthropoid apes chose to 
migrate southward to a warmer climate, and thus re-- 
mained arboreal folk or tree-clamberers. But the human- 
oids, of a more hardy nature, remained in the more 
northern regions, and decided to live upon the ground in- 
stead of in the trees. This was “a desperate and hazard- 
ous adventure for arboreal forms during a period which 
was in many respects the zenith of mammalian carnivor- 
ous life.” But the adventure was worth while, for the 


*See his Man and the Attainment of Immortality. 


CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS 207 


new environment, ‘with its challenging stimuli and beck- 
onings, resulted in further mental advance.” In fact, the 
. new surroundings and activities reacted on the brains of 
man’s ancestors, and “the steady growth of the brain 
reacted upon the general shape of the face and skull.” 
Now, just give the process plenty of time, millions of 
years, and homo sapiens is the result! Mark the differ- 
ence between this account of man’s origin and evolution 
and the theories advanced by Lane and Gregory, de- 
scribed above. 


INHERITANCE OF ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS 


On another question there is much diversity of opinion 
in the scientific world—the inheritance of acquired char- 
acteristics. Herbert Spencer contended with might and 
main that, if such traits were not handed down from 
parent to offspring, there could be no evolution; and we 
believe he was right. But many scientists to-day deny 
this view, and cite numerous facts and arguments against 
it. But along comes Paul Kammerer, an Austrian scien- 
tist, who stoutly maintains the doctrine, and even holds 
that changes are wrought in the germ-plasms by the trans- 
mission of acquired peculiarities. Which parties in the 
contest are right? 


DIFFERENCES REGARDING MIRACLES 


A Christian believer, however much he may differ from 
Professor H. H. Lane,* cannot help feeling gratified that 
he does his best to uphold the Christian faith and recon- 
cile it with the evolution hypothesis. He accepts the 
miracles of the Bible, among them the virgin birth of 


®See his Evolution and Christian Faith. 


208 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Christ, and says that these facts are beyond and above 
evolution; they are something in addition to the processes 
of nature. Whether this position can be consistently 
maintained is doubtful. It certainly differs from the 
opinion of Professor Conklin, of Princeton University, 
who, in his work, The Direction of Human Evolution, 
presents the theory in such a way as to exclude the super- 
natural altogether. The same is true of the Osborn- 
Gregory article in McClure’s Magazine; also of the two 
recent books by Yale University professors, in conjunc- 
tion with Professor Conklin, The Evolution of the Earth 
and Its Inhabitants, and The Evolution of Man. Joseph 
McCabe also finds no place for the miraculous or super- 
natural in nature’s processes. On the other hand, Dr. 
W. W. Keen,‘ argues that evolution demands God, and 
believes that, after he has relegated certain parts of the 
Bible to the limbo of myth and poetry, Christianity is 
consistent with evolution. Thus do the scientists differ 
among themselves. 


Is Man Bestia or Not? 


Mr. Carl E. Akeley, sculptor and big game hunter, 
who made the famous “Chrysalis,” the statue represent- 
ing a youth emerging from a gorilla, has been defending 
the animals from the charge of bestiality. He holds that 
“the lion is a gentleman and a sportsman; the gorilla 
is pathetically affectionate, while the elephant is a charm- 
ing creature.” Mr, Akeley has done much hunting in the 
Belgian Congo, the center of Africa, and has come to the 
conclusion that animals have been grossly scandalized by 
being called “‘bestial.”” He declares that man is the only 


“1 Believe in God and in Evolution. 


CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS 209 


creature to whom that adjective may be rightly applied. 
“Tt is man who is bestial,” is his assertion. 

If that is so, it disproves evolution; for then man, in- 
stead of having been evolved, is a degenerate form. He 
is another case of devolution rather than of evolution. 
Besides, the defenders of evolution, especially those of a 
theological cast, have been assuring us that sin is merely 
the remains of man’s heritage of animalism. Mr. Akeley 
runs counter to this view in holding that animals are 
respectable creatures, while man alone is bestial in nature. 
If animals are such excellent creatures, man never could 
have inherited his meanness from them. It must come 
from some other source. Whence? In this way evolu- 
tionists annihilate one another. 


MAN’s ORIGINAL HABITAT 


Everybody, no doubt, has been reading about the Los 
Angeles fossil man, found near that city. The claim 
is now being made by some “‘scientists” (who, by the way, 
“prove” everything before they make any assertions! ) 
that the human family got its’start here in America. The 
newly found fossils belong to the Pleistocene Age, and 
their human owner must have lived 500,000 years ago— 
perhaps more. If this “find” is genuine, “the first real 
men lived in America.” This view will completely upset 
the former theory of the evolutionists that modern man 
was born in Asia and migrated to America. For many 
years, the evolutionists have been sure that this was “the 
fact,” and no one had a right to deny it. Now some 
scientists are seriously advocating the view, on the ground 
of a few fossil remains, that the human race started 
here in America and crossed over the Bering Strait, and 
thus populated the eastern continent. Recently Dr. H. F. 


210 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Osborn has been just as sure that he could prove man’s 
natal place to have been the Gobi Desert in Mongolia, 
China. Cannot every thoughtful person see that the 
scientists are merely guessing? Where are their “estab- 
lished facts’? So-called “science” is becoming renowned 
for its numerous ex-theories. 

If the latest ‘‘scientific” facts prove to be “facts” in- 
deed, and not mere guesses, the Trinil, Heidelberg, Pilt- 
down, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon men will all soon 
be sadly out of date. Worse than that, they will be 
“anachronisms.” The evolutionists have been relying on 
those fossils, meager as they are, for the main “proofs” 
of their theory. However, they claim that those men 
lived only from 25,000 to 50,000 years ago. But the Los 
Angeles man was hiking about in America over 500,000 
years ago. Therefore, those ancient gentlemen of Eu- 
rope and Java could not have been the progenitors of the 
human family. Thus the whole theory of “scientific” 
evolution is theatened with annihilation. 


Is THERE A STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE? 


Just to indicate still further variances among the evolu- 
tionists, attention is called to the fact that J. Arthur 
Thomson contends that animals are not engaged in a 
hard and selfish ‘“‘struggle for existence,” but that, on the 
contrary, many altruistic traits of character are exhibited 
by them.> In many ways, he holds, they are mutually 
helpful. Hence the theory that man descended from a 
brute stock is supposed.to be made much more palatable 
to the long-suffering public. However, we would remind 
our readers that only some two years ago Drs. Osborn and 
Gregory, among the very élite of the evolutionary school, 


*In his What is Man? 


CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS 11 


stoutly maintained that the struggle for existence—with 
its correlate, the survival of the fittest—was the law of 
‘nature from the start and that it is the dominant law 
to-day. 

J. Arthur Thomson also holds that man never was an 
animal. He was never, according to this savant, a fierce, 
beastly looking creature like the primitive man recently 
pictured in McClure’s Magazine and Popular Science 
Monthly. Thomson claims that the first man sprang 
suddenly by a big leap (a “mutation”) from the primate 
stock into a human being. From the start he was a full- 
fledged man, not a monkey-man, not even an ape-man. 
This is utterly different from Darwin’s theory; also from 
the recent claims of some of the leading evolutionists, who 
have been loudly asserting that man emerged by a gradual 
process from the pre-ape and sub-monkey state into the 
“humanoid” state. 

But why and how did the primitive man happen to 
make this great saltation from the animal to the human 
status? What force caused him to take so sudden and 
tremendous a leap? To these questions Professor Thom- 
son vouchsafes no reply. But he does try to find a paral- 
lelism which he thinks may throw some light on the sub- 
ject. Here it is. Now and then in human history 
“sports” occur—that is, geniuses suddenly spring up. 
Mention might be made of such men as Homer, Plato, 
Moses, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Shakespeare, Washing- 
ton and Lincoln. Just as these men rose suddenly from 
the general mass of mediocre individuals, so the first 
man sprang up suddenly from the primates into a truly 
human personality. 

How does this explanation appeal to the thoughtful 
reader? Does it seem probable, possible or reasonable? 
Is there any empirical proof of the theory? If so, where? 


212 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Has anyone ever witnessed the sudden saltation of a 
human being from an animal stock? Not only has this 
never been seen, but the parallelism of the sudden rise of 
human geniuses will not hold. There are few instances 
in human history in which genius-like qualities carry over 
into the next generation. Therefore analogical reasoning 
would lead us to conclude that the descendants of the 
“sport” man of evolutionary fame would have reverted 
to the common primate stock. Such has always been the 
fate of the offspring of “sports” in both the natural and 
the human world. 


WHERE ARE MAN’s REAL ANCESTORS? 


A fatal difficulty about the transformist method of ex- 
plaining the origin of types and species is this: None of 
the anomalous creatures from which they sprung are to 
be found anywhere, either in the world to-day or in the 
geological remains. All of them are without discoverable 
ancestry. To make our meaning plain, where is the 
strange creature from which the vegetable and animal 
branches of the well-known ‘genealogical tree”? sprang? 
It can nowhere be found. Again, where is the creature 
styled the “primate stock” from which the simians and 
their human relatives branched off? Echo simply an- 
swers, “Where?” The progenitors of men and monkeys 
have all disappeared and have left no trace. The Trinil, 
Piltdown, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon men were not 
the predecessors of homo sapiens (the human being of 
to-day), but branches that broke away from the main 
stem ages ago. Thus they and man have no living ances- 
tors; neither can any fossil remains of such ancestors be 
found in the cemeteries of the past. Really, it would 
seem that the old Darwinian theory of descent had a bet- 


CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS 213 


ter basis than the present one has, for, according to the 
old view, some kind of a lineage could be traced for the 
various forms of life, however meager and unconvincing 
the data may have been. 

Why have the evolutionists thus shifted their position 
within recent years? Because they are coming to see for 
themselves that no evidence has been forthcoming to 
prove the transmutation of species in modern times. 
With the rest of us, they see the various types reproduc- 
ing “after their kind.” Neither do they find in paleon- 
tology any trace of transformism. Hence, in their 
dilemma, they have invented the idea of a genealogical 
tree, with its diverging branches. This device enables 
them to go back far enough in time to indulge in various 
kinds of speculation, and to feel secure in the belief that 
no one can absolutely prove them to be mistaken. How- 
ever, in spite of their assurance, we venture to suggest 
that their theories are speculation run wild. 


EVOLUTION AND DETERIORATION 


A recent booklet, entitled Evolution Made Plain, says 
that evolution does not teach that every living thing is 
becoming better and better. ‘On the contrary,” says the 
author, “it shows that many species deteriorate, are 
driven to the wall, and become extinct, while only the 
best fitted survive.” 

This is a mistaken claim. It is not evolution that re- 
veals these patent facts; it is common-sense observation. 
The facts may be plainly seen even if no evolution theory 
were in vogue. Scientific research, no matter by whom 
carried on, has proven that many species of animals, once 
living upon the earth, have perished, leaving only their 


214 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


fossil remains to tell the story. It is wrong to make 
such unwarranted claims for evolution. 

How and why these ancient species of animals per- 
ished, neither evolution nor empirical science can tell us. 
No real evidence exists to warrant the assertion that they 
“were driven to the wall” and exterminated by other spe- 
cies better fitted to survive. That theory is only a guess, 
like so many guesses of these conjecture-ridden days. 
Those ancient creatures may have perished through nat- 
urally destructive causes. Surely the elephants found 
imbedded in the ice of the polar regions, with their flesh 
kept fresh for ages in cold storage, were not destroyed by 
other animals more powerful than they; for in that case 
their flesh would have been devoured. 

Indeed, there is strong evidence of a great cataclysm 
in the history of our earth that destroyed many kinds of 
creatures suddenly. In many localities their remains are 
found heaped together in large numbers, proving that 
they were seeking safety, but were overtaken by sudden 
disaster. Even fresh, undigested grass has been found in 
the stomachs of animals imbedded centuries ago in the © 
ice of northern Siberia. How are we to interpret such 
outstanding facts? Surely not by the long-drawn strug- 
gle for existence and the survival of the fittest. 

A most serious count against evolution is the fact that 
many of the species of extinct animals, like the mastodons 
and some of the dinosaurs, were much larger and stronger 
than are the animals of the same types to-day.® Could 


The recent finds of Dr. Osborn and his party in the Gobi Desert, 
Mongolia, China, are indeed very interesting. Many fossil remains of 
dinosaurs—animals now extinct—were discovered, and for the first time 
some eggs of these creatures were found. But these discoveries afford 
no proof of transformism. ‘The fossils show that those ancient animals 
were just as complete and complex in their organization as are their 
successors to-day. They were also much larger and much more powerful. 


CHANGING VIEWS OF THE SCIENTISTS ars 


the smaller species which have survived to the present 
time have killed off those powerful beasts of the geological 
yesterday? Compare the small lizards of to-day with 
their immense predecessors of bygone ages. No; the the- 
ory of the struggle for existence, with its correlate, the 
survival of the fittest, explains little, if anything, of the 
history of life on our earth. It is an inadequate 
hypothesis. 

As a matter of fact, so-called “official science” has 
quite often been mistaken. In a recent French summary 
of scientific investigations occurs this paragraph: 


The history of all science warns us that the sim- 
plest theories have been rejected a priori as being 
incompatible with science. Medical anesthesia was 
denied by Majendie. The action of microbes was 
contested for twenty years by all the scientists of 
all the academies. Bouillaud declared that the tele- 
phone was but ventriloquism. Lavoisier said that 
stones cannot fall from the sky, for there are no 
stones in the sky. The circulation of the blood was 
only admitted after forty years of sterile discussion. 
In a lecture in 1827 at the Academy of Sciences 
Girard asserted it to be folly to suppose that water 
could be led to the upper floors of houses by pipes. 
In 1840 J. Mueller declared that the speed of nerve 
impulse could never be measured.? 

The eggs, too, were just as perfect as are any eggs found to-day, just 
as fully organized for all procreative purposes. The fossils of mos- 
quitoes were also found, and those ancient insect pests were just as 
competent to do business as are our modern, up-to-date mosquitoes. 
The extinct animals and insects, therefore, fail to bear favorable witness 
to the theory of evolution. 

“The author regrets that he has mislaid the authority for this im- 


portant paragraph, but he distinctly remembers that he was entirely 
satisfied with its reliability when he copied it. 


216 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Some remarks that are apt and apropos from that 
acute scientist and reasoner, Dr. Louis Trenchard More,® 
will bring our chapter on shifting science to a conclusion: 
“Or do men of science recognize that they are living in 
glass houses and that it is dangerous to throw stones? 
When they scoff at philosophy and religion because of 
seventy-odd jarring sects which cannot agree, they forget 
their own inability to solve the nature of matter and 
energy, and that the pathway of science is strewn with the 
wrecks of cherished hypotheses.” ‘Then he cites a num- 
ber of notable examples of the kaleidoscopic phases of 
science which need not be repeated here. 


®See his notable work, The Dogma of Evolution, pp. 352, 353- 


CHAPTER XI 
HOMOLOGIES AND OTHER DATA 


How MEN AND MoNKEYsS DIFFER 


Nowadays much is made of homologies—that is, of the 
physical parallelisms between man and his supposed rela- 
tives of the simian tribes. We have already dealt at some 
length with this subject, and have tried to impress upon 
the reader’s mind the reasonableness of the conclusion 
that these resemblances may simply be marks of the 
unity of the Creator’s plan. He made a universe of 
much diversity, it is true; yet, on the supposition that He 
meant to have a real universe, all organisms had to be 
cast pretty much in the same mold. Had men been con- 
stituted utterly unlike the natural world around him, he 
would not have been “at home” in his environment; he 
would have been an alien and a misfit. There is just 
enough diversity in the cosmos to make it continuously 
interesting, and at the same time enough unity to con- 
stitute it a universe. 

But, to our mind, the fact of homologies has been over- 
worked by the transformists, while some vital differentiat- 
ing data have either been ignored or too little stressed. 
Instead of perpetually looking for parallelisms, why not 
make an honest effort to discern the striking differences 
between men and animals? Let us suggest a few of them. 

Men are self-conscious beings, able to say “I,” and to 
know what they mean by it. No animal can say “I”; 
hence no one can assert that animals have self-conscious- 

217 


218 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


ness. We do know, however, that man has, because he 
can talk about it. Man can reason. He can draw logi- 
cal conclusions from given premises. Animals have no 
such ability. They have an instinct by which they can 
adapt themselves to their surroundings and conditions, but 
that is far from an endowment worthy to be called a ra- 
tional faculty. Men can construct languages, built upon 
grammatical principles. Even the pagan tribes of dark- 
est Africa have languages that are so constructed.t Man 
has a mathematical mind, with which he can solve the 
most intricate problems, even to figuring out the exact 
time of an eclipse many years before it occurs. What 
animal can do these things? 

Moreover, man’s mind is capable of continued progress 
as long as life and strength endure. The brute mind can 
go just so far and then must stop. In the natural state 
animals make no progress in intelligence. 

But man has still higher faculties—he has conscience, 
which enables him to distinguish between right and 
wrong; he has free will, enabling him to choose between 
alternatives, whether in the natural or the moral sphere. 
Such faculties are unknown in the animal world. Most 
of all, man has a spiritual faculty with which he appre- 
hends God, communes with Him, makes His will his 
standard, and looks forward with joy to a destiny of 
eternal fellowship with Him. But in monkeyland there 
is no sense of these uplifting truths and realities. The 
contrasts are therefore essential and eternal; the paral- 
lelisms are incidental and temporary. 

Even when we compare man’s bodily organism with 
that of animals, there are many marked and striking con- 
trasts. Man naturally stands and walks uprightly. Only 
by a strained effort can he go in any other way. The ani- 


*See Alexander LeRoy, The Religion of the Primitives. 


HOMOLOGIES AND OTHER DATA 219 


mals nearest him naturally go on all fours. Some of them 
can assume the upright position for a time, but it is not 
‘their natural posture. Watch a bevy of monkeys run- 
ning from danger, and you will see them galloping along 
on their four feet. 

Compare the hands of man with those of monkeys or 
the forefeet of any other animal, and note the differences. 
The monkey’s hands are made specifically for climbing, 
while those of man are not well adapted for that purpose. 
They are, however, constructed for all kinds of skillful 
mechanical functions. It has been truly said that, if 
man’s hand had been constructed like that of the monkey 
or the ape, a high civilization would have been impossible, 
because then he could have developed no mechanical 
genius. And the significant fact is that the earliest—or 
what are believed to be the earliest—fossil remains of 
men that have been found show that they had fully de- 
veloped human hands, while no intermediate forms, part 
human and part monkey, have been discovered. Here is 
indeed a vital difference between man and the simians; 
it is one on which many truly human facts are absolutely 
dependent; it is not a mere trifling or incidental difference. 

Next consider man’s foot. It is admirably adapted 
for upright walking, but is a very poor arrangement for 
going on all fours. It is also worth little for climbing pur- 
poses. On the other hand, the monkey’s foot is specifi- 
cally made for clambering among the trees, for holding 
on to the branches, and scaling the boles, while it is rather 
a poor shift for locomotion on the ground. Here again is 
a most vital dissimilarity. 

It is difficult to see how the monkey’s hind palm and 
digits could have ever evolved into the foot of a man, 
which is fitted for so different a purpose. Nor is it rea- 
sonable to assume that, if man was once an expert tree- 


220 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


climber, he would ever have abandoned his arboreal 
habits, seeing that they would have been of great value 
to him in escaping from dangerous land animals. What 
could it have been, anyway, that drove him down from 
the trees and converted him into a terrestrial being? 

Man’s skeletal, tendinous, and muscular mechanism 
all combine to give him the upright position. He also 
has the necessary physiological functioning powers and 
the anatomical apparatus for balancing himself when he 
stands and walks, so that he automatically preserves his 
equilibrium. ‘To go on his hands and feet as the monkeys 
do is unnatural and laborious for him. Im this respect 
again the differentiation is as striking as it is essential. 
If man had been made a four-legged creature, moving 
along horizontally like animals, it is difficult to see how 
he could have become highly civilized and cultured. Evi- 
dently he was specifically created and fashioned for the 
very place he occupies in the world. 

Made upright, he can feel that he was created in the 
divine image. His head and eyes are so related to the 
rest of his body that he can readily look down upon the 
ground to watch his footsteps and to view the realm of 
nature below him. At the same time he can look about 
him horizontally, and greet his fellowmen as his equals 
and comrades. For this cause, too, he can view nature 
laterally and this helps him to interpret her phenomena. 
Most of all, man’s upright position enables him easily to 
lift his eyes up to the vast universe that God has made 
for his home, delight and wonder and to God who is 
greater than the universe. Note that man can cast his — 
vision toward the transcendent God in no other way than 
by looking up from the earth. He must also lift the eyes 
of his soul upward in order to worship the true and living 
God. Thus he is so formed corporeally that he need 


HOMOLOGIES AND OTHER DATA 221 


not be a groundling, if he will look upward beyond ma- 
terial things. 

Is it not also true that man’s upright position con ae 
upon him a dignity that he could not otherwise maintain? 
Suppose, for example, he were compelled all his life to 
stand and move horizontally, how could he regard him- 
self as belonging to a special genus? The very fact that 
he stands upright marks him as the special creation of 
God, made for a purpose very different from that of the 
vegetable and animal kingdoms. Moreover, uprightness 
of physical posture suggests uprightness of character, and 
therefore incites man to keep himself above the plane of 
mere animal life. 

There is, furthermore, a significant difference between 
man’s physiognomy and that of the beasts. Note the 
variety of expression on man’s countenance. He can dis- 
play any kind of emotion, even though he may not open 
his lips in speech. He can weep and rejoice. If he uses 
his will, he can keep his face immobile in times of great 
stress of feeling. How different from the “wooden” ex- 
pression on the face of an animal. A monkey in a cage 
may perform all kinds of pranks yet his countenance re- 
mains expressionless. In some cases there may be a 
gleam in the eye, but often even that organ remains 
lack-luster. 

Thus we have shown that a wide gulf separates man 
from the animals. Man has moral and spiritual powers 
that put him in a genus all his own. His body bears the 
insignia of a higher nature than that of his brute neigh- 
bors. He has mental concepts, emotions, desires and 
ideals that they know nothing about. All these facts 
proclaim him to have been created and designed by the 
Almighty for a noble purpose. These differences are so 
deep, so elemental, so structural, that it is unreasonable 


2a2 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


to assume that such a being as man could have been 
evolved from a bestial stock. The doctrine of special _ 
creation in the divine image best explains why man is of 
so superior a mold and character. 


How A BRAIN was EVOLVED 


“We are all descended from a simple, wormlike crea- 
ture,” says Professor D. W. La Rue. “The segments of 
our backbone are memorials of the segments of his 
body.” ? : 

Let us follow and analyze the author’s method of rea- 
soning. He then proceeds to say that at first the 
segments of our ancestral worm’s body were largely 
independent, each having its own nerve arc and 
ganglion. 


But such a creature has to move; and it is not 
round like a jelly-fish, and so it cannot strike off 
indifferently in any direction; it has ends, and one of 
these ends must go first. Since the creature is mov- 
ing largely to find food, it is natural that the mouth 
end should go first. Now, this roaming mouth needs 
the best guidance possible. What better place for 
the senses of taste, smell, hearing and sight, than 
the region round the mouth? 


Let us see whether it is reasonable to believe that evolu- 
tion could have developed the creature thus far. It had 
two ends, says our author. How could a creature with 
ends evolve from a creature without ends? What caused 
the round jellyfish to lose its rotundity and develop into 

* Psychology for Teachers, p. 32. This book is intended as a text- 


book in our public, tax-supported schools, and inculcates evolution in 
the usual cocksure style. 


HOMOLOGIES AND OTHER DATA 223 


a creature of oblong form? ‘There are jellyfishes to-day. 
No scientist has ever known one of them to become any- 
thing but a jellyfish or to procreate anything but jelly- 
fishes. Yet jellyfishes have been known for thousands 
of years. So where is the scientific proof of the evolution 
of a higher type of animal from the jellyfish? 

This worm-like creature had two ends. How he got 
them no one knows. At one end it had a mouth, a “roam- 
ing mouth.” But how did it get its mouth? If it lived 
previously without a mouth, it did not need a mouth; 
therefore evolution had no reason for evolving a mouth. 
But the primary question is, How could the mouth ever 
have gotten started? And when it was started “just a 
little bit,” of what use would it have been? None. 
Therefore evolution would have had no reason to develop 
the incipient organ further. It would have been more 
than useless; it would have been an encumbrance. 

However, that “roaming mouth” needed “the best 
guidance possible.” Therefore ‘the mouth end” of the 
creature had to have the various senses of taste, smell, 
hearing and sight. But here is a still greater sphinx’s 
riddle: How could these marvelous senses have been 
evolved? For instance, eyes were needed for sight. 
There is no possible way by which so complex and mar- 
velous a mechanism as an eye can be developed by for- 
tuitous natural causes! Moreover, the eye is an organ 
that must be complete before it can be of use for seeing. 
Thus, during the long ages in which it would have been 
evolving, it would have been useless; for which reason 
evolution itself should have eliminated it as encumbering 
baggage. The same would have been true of the palate, 
the nostrils, and the ears. All of them in their incipiency 
would have been useless lumber. 

But this creature could not get along without a brain. 


224 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


So how does evolution set about to produce that much- 
needed organ? The author explains the process in this 
way: 


But every one of these sense organs must be con- 
nected with every muscle of the body. If, for exam- 
ple, the eye reports food in front of the animal, a 
nerve thrill must pass from that eye to every body- 
moving muscle to insure full speed ahead. And 
there must be an equally widespread distribution of 
nerve impulses to secure united action of all muscles 
in beating a retreat. Now, all this means multipli- 
cation of connections, of nerve fibers, and, as we 
should expect, most of them appear in the most con- 
venient place, near the sense organs, in the head. 
So begins the brain. 

Thus there come to be grouped about the bony- 
armored head the mouth, the special sense organs, 
and the brain. To sum up; the mouth end of the 
animal not only goes ahead, but grows a head, with a 
brain in it, and set round with the most delicate and 
precious sense organs. 


All this is very wonderful. The mouth end of the crea- 
ture goes ahead without a brain, and so develops a brain 
in order that it can go ahead! Which came first—the go- 
ing ahead or the brain? If the creature could go ahead 
without a brain, why did it need a brain? If it needed 
a brain in order to go ahead, then the brain must have 
been there before it went ahead, and therefore the brain 
could not have been evolved by the animal’s going ahead. 
This wonderful creature, a worm, man’s remote ancestor, 
could not go ahead without a brain, and yet by going 
ahead it evolved a brain! 


HOMOLOGIES AND OTHER DATA 225 


In the next paragraph our author says: “The brain is 
the master ganglion of the body, the chief member of the 
most important bodily system, the governing system, the 
steering system.” 

Then if this prehistoric worm had to have a brain to 
enable it to function, how did it function before the brain 
was evolved? Just think the matter through from the 
scientific viewpoint: The previously named animal must 
have had its complete outfit of mouth, nerves, ganglions 
and brain before it could have functioned at all. Had 
any of them been missing, it could not have done business. 
Therefore it could not have been evolved by a slow proc- 
ess. It must have been planned and given its full equip- 
ment by its Creator, which proposition is further proved 
by the fact that it has never been known to reproduce 
anything but animals of its own peculiar kind. And that 
fact accords with the Bible, but disproves evolution. 


More Notes ON TRANSFORMISM 


To the problem of the transformation of species we 
herewith add a few pertinent quotations to show that we 
are not alone in our doubts regarding it. 

A keen writer is D. A. Sommer, who has recently 
issued a valuable booklet, with the title, Science and Sup- 
position in Evolution, Geology and Astronomy. Note 
this: “Even the little moneron, the one-celled creature in 
the bottom of the sea, from which they say man started 
a hundred millions years ago—even he, in all his little- 
ness and lack of ‘useful modifications,’ is still here, and 
his very existence is fatal to the theory of the survival 
of the fittest, the foundation stone of the theory of 
evolution.” 3 


*P.: 9. 


226 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


The following quotation is from Le Conte: 

“The study of species, as they now are, would probably 
not suggest, certainly could not prove, the theory of their 
origin by derivation or transmutation.”* That is just 
the point for which we have contended again and again— 
that when we study nature as she now is, we find no proof 
of the transmutation theory. To turn back a million 
years, and say evolution, took place then, is simply to beg 
the question. If evolution occurred in nature then, nature 
must have functioned differently then from what she does 
now. In that case what becomes of “the law of uni- 
formity,” on which the evolutionists so stoutly insist? 
Nature, they hold, has always carried on her processes as 
she does now. If that were so, we ought to see non- 
living matter evolving into living matter all around 
us. We ought also to see species of plants and animals 
evolving into new and higher forms. But we certainly 
do not see these processes carried on in the natural 
realm to-day. Yet some time in the past life and species 
must have started. Professor G. M. Price puts the facts 
well when he says: 


Some organisms must have been called into exist- 
ence in a way different from any process that we now 
call a natural process. [Also] Matter and life and 
the various distinct kinds of life must have been 
brought into existence at some time in the past 
through a process wholly different, both in the de- 
gree and the kind of power exerted, from any process 
now going on around us which we call a natural 
process. 


The only alternative to gradual development that we 
know anything about is creation. 
*Compend of Geology, p. III. 


HOMOLOGIES AND OTHER DATA 227 


That branch of biology which deals with the individ- 
ual cell, its structure and processes, is called cytology. 
-Of course, it is closely connected with embryology, which 
treats of the development of the embryos of plants and 
animals from the egg stage to the birth of the new indi- 
vidual. Histology deals with the development of the 
cells into the various tissues of the animal body. These 
are wonderful subjects, and the study of them is most 
interesting. And here is a significant fact relative to 
cells, which are known as the units of life. All cells 
reproduce after their kind—except one species, and this 
exception is most remarkable. The exception is the 
reproductive cells. When the sperm of the male and 
the ovum of the female come into the proper conjunc- 
tion and are permitted to develop, they will produce 
all the diverse cells of the body, those that form bone, 
muscle, blood, tendons, and all the rest, even the little 
unicellular corpuscles that swim about in the blood and 
feed on bacteria. Yet after the first cells of each species 
have been brought forth by the procreative cells, all 
of them multiply after their kind. Even the amcebe in 
the blood give birth only to other amcebe. How sug- 
gestive of intelligent design in creation! Nothing more 
clearly shows the hand of God. The fecundity of the 
procreative cells makes the various organisms of the 
world possible, while the other cells insure the stability 
and certainty of type, thus giving us a cosmos, a world 
of organic and genetic law and order. 

On the permanence of species Dr. Bullinger offers 
these pointed remarks: 


All the eggs of birds are identical in their chem- 
ical composition; and yet each egg produces its own 
species without any variation. Each species has its 


228 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


own identical habits and instincts, differing from 
those of other species. A duck hatched by a hen 
will, on coming out of its shell, seek the water, of 
which it can have had no previous experience, while | 
the hen dare not follow. ... The crab-apple and 
the vine may grow close together from the very same 
soil. Their roots may intertwine; they may have 
the same air, the same showers, the same sun; but 
the one will be sour and the other sweet. ‘Their 
difference is seen to be permanent.° 


How To ProvE TRANSFORMISM 


The only way to prove the truth or non-truth of evolu- 
tion is to go to nature in the raw and study her first-hand. 
Penetrate to central Africa, where no human intelligence 
has ever touched nature, and see whether you find signs 
of progress there. Do any of the plants, insects, reptiles, 
birds and animals develop into higher or different forms, 
or afford any evidence that they ever have had such a 
predilection? In all the history of the world has a wilder- 
ness ever developed by native forces into a garden? Has 
it ever even displayed any tendency to become garden- 
like? ‘There is not an iota of evidence that it has. The 
wilderness remains a wilderness until human intelligence 
touches and transforms it. 

Since there is no mark of progressiveness in nature’s 
realm when left to herself, it is evident that nature 
never could have produced man. The only circumstances 
in which nature is known to make progress are those in 
which man with his intelligence and free will lays hold 
upon her and pushes her upward. Therefore, we repeat, 
nature never could have brought man into being. 


*The Fallacies of Evolution. 


HOMOLOGIES AND OTHER DATA 229 


Suppose we go again to central Africa. Do the native 
tribes, when left to themselves, make progress from a 
lower to a higher status? Has any ethnologist ever known 
an animistic tribe to develop into monotheistic belief by 
means of inherent forces? Have the scientists ever 
known a pagan tribe to become Christian by natural de- 
velopment? Not one. In every case of improvement 
a power from outside the tribe has touched its life.® 

But why does man in certain circumstances make prog- 
ress while nature does not? The only adequate answer 
is, man was created an intelligent being in the image of 
his Maker, and therefore was constituted by Him with 
the capacity for making progress. God brought nature 
to a certain status, and then told man, whom He had 
created in His own image, to ‘‘complete and subdue” the 
earth.” 

Is that a scientific doctrine? It surely is; it agrees 
with the facts as we know them. We know that nature 
stands still until man comes along and subdues and im- 
proves her. The biblical cosmogony agrees perfectly with 
observed data; therefore it is scientific.® 

Another fact supports the biblical view. Some months 
ago the author asked a missionary, who had lately come 
from his field of service in central Africa, where he had 
been working with pagan tribes—some of which had 
never before been touched by Christianity and civiliza- 
tion—whether any of them had any tradition or belief 
that they had evolved from animals like the monkey races 
about them. He replied promptly, “‘No! they would be 
highly insulted if you suggested such a thing!” This 
is significant. All tribes, no matter how low in the scale, 


*See Alexander Le Roy, The Religion of the Primitives. 
* Gen. i.27, 28. 
*See George B. O’Toole, The Case Against Evolution. 


230 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


have some sort of religion and ethics. Nearly all of them, 
if not all, have some kind of tradition, however dim it 
may be, that they were brought into existence by the 
gods and that they in some respects bear their image. 
This tradition is most significant. It may surely be 
interpreted as an inheritance from the original creation 
according to Genesis, although it has been greatly dimmed 
and corrupted through the ages. If this does not ex- 
plain the tradition, what will? If men were the descend- 
ants of the simian tribes, or came from the same primate 
stock, there surely ought to be some kind of a tradition 
about it among the pagan nations. 

Should it be said that the Hindu doctrine of trans- 
migration might be brought forward as a proof of man’s 
animal ancestry, we would reply that the reincarnation 
of a human soul in an animal form is ever regarded in 
the Hindu religion as a degradation, a fall, and never 
as a mark of advancement. Hence this doctrine furnishes 
an argument against evolution rather than for it. 


CHAPTER XII 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK ON EVOLU- 
TION 


THE RIGHT TO Pass JUDGMENT 


Sometimes it is said that only the specialist in physical 
science has a right to form an opinion or pronounce a 
judgment on the theory of evolution. In a recent 
brochure, Professor Raymond C. Osburn, of the Ohio 
State University, says: “An educated man should at 
least be able to draw the line between what he knows and 
what he doesn’t know, and not attempt to pass judgment 
on matters outside of his field of training. An educated 
man without scientific training has no more basis for 
forming a proper judgment of the law of evolution than 
of the Einstein theory of Relativity.” 

If the Christian theologian is to be forbidden to ven- 
ture upon scientific ground because it is an exclusive 
reservation, he might say, in turn and with equal right, 
to the physical scientist: ‘You must stay out of my 
domain. You are not a technically trained theologian. 
You expose your lack of such training almost every time 
you open your mouth or put your pen to paper on re- 
ligious subjects.” 

Yet many evolutionists do enter the territory of re- 
ligion, and even venture to pronounce judgment upon 
its tenets and to read our trained exegetical scholars 
some lessons in biblical interpretation. We shall cite 
some outstanding examples to prove this statement. 

231 


232 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


In 1923 Dr. Conklin issued a brochure entitled, Evo- 
lution and the Bible.1 Dr. W. W. Keen, a scientist and 
a surgeon (not a theologian), issued a book recently with 
the title, J Believe in God and in Evolution, in which he 
gave the preachers some advice, and even ventured to 
instruct the technical Semitic scholars of our day how to 
interpret the languages of the Orient; and in doing so, he 
committed some humiliating errors. Professor Raymond 
C. Osburn, of the Department of Zodlogy in the Ohio 
State University, published a tract on Some Misconcep- 
tions of Evolution, in which he also made excursions into 
the field of religion and biblical interpretation. A new 
book by Henry Fairfield Osborn comes to hand, with 
the title, Evolution and: Religion, which is an attempt to 
deal with both, and pronounce judgment on fundamental 
theological doctrines. Another recent book is entitled, 
Where Evolution and Religion Meet, by Professors John 
M. and Merle C. Coulter, of the Department of Botany 
in the University of Chicago. In recent years Mr. H. G. 
Wells has made many a sally of a more or less sensational 
character into the realm of religion. The leading article 
recently in a magazine for preachers 2 was by Professor 
J. Arthur Thomson, who essayed to speak with not a 
little assurance on the subject of the relation between 
religion and science. Still more recently a book has come 
from his pen entitled Science and Religion. Hendrik 
Willem Van Loon has ventured to write what he calls 
The Story of the Bible. A somewhat notable English 
book, Religion and Biology, is written by Professor 
Ernest E. Unwin, M.Sc., who is not a theologian, but a 
science master. We have already mentioned Professor 
H. H. Lane’s Evolution and Christian Faith, and have 


* Discussed in Chap. VII of this volume. 
*The Homiletic Monthly, Jan., 1924. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK 233 


pointed out some of its defects. Dr. Osborn has written 
another book, The Earth Speaks To Bryan, in which he 
“pronounces judgment on a number of theological 
doctrines. 

Thus it is seen that some of the physical scientists 
consider themselves competent to enter the field of re- 
ligion and discuss its profound problems. Do we resent 
their doing so? Do we call them intruders and tres- 
passers? Indeed, no! ‘They are welcome, especially if 
they prove themselves capable of dealing intelligently 
with these subjects. It would be narrow and presump- 
tuous for theologians to put up a sign, “No trespassing on 
these premises!”” We believe that all realms of human 
investigation ought to be open and free to all thinkers; 
only let them first do their research work well, and give 
their conclusions publicity only after they have made 
sufficient investigation. Therefore we hold that, as we 
do not say Verboten to the scientist who wishes to enter 
the field of theology, he should be generous and courteous 
enough to accord us the same right when we venture into 
the domain of science. 

The fact is, as some one has said, the bane of our day 
is Overspecialization. So many men confine their investi- 
gations to only one restricted section of nature or thought, 
and then try to impose upon their fellowmen a world- 
philosophy based on their limited data and viewpoint. 
It is impossible to formulate a world-view of real value 
in that way. To be classed as men of broad vision, all 
facts, as far as possible, must be taken into account. 
There is a beautiful sisterhood of all the sciences. Let 
us not segregate any of them; let us correlate them; then 
only are we ready to construct an adequate world-view. 

With the foregoing facts in mind, we feel justified in 
reviewing and criticizing one of the latest and most 


234 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


authentic books on the side of evolution. Its title is, 
The Evolution of Man. It contains chapters by the 
following scientists: Professors Richard Swann Lull, 
Harry Burr Ferris, George Howard Parker, James Row- 
land Angell, Albert Galloway Keller, and Edwin Grant 
Conklin. Of these, Lull, Parker, Ferris and Keller are 
professors in Yale University; Angell is president of that 
institution; Conklin is professor of biology in Princeton 
University. ‘The book was issued in the fall of 1922, 
and the lectures which it comprises were delivered dur- 
ing the academic year of 1921-1922 at Yale University. 

The first word to say of the book is, that it is written 
in a noncontroversial style. Little attempt is made to 
answer the objections of those who do not accept evolu- 
tion. Indeed, they are treated for the most part as if 
they were nonexistent. As a rule, the positive side of 
evolution is stated in a positive way; while, we are glad 
to say, some difficulties in the way of belief in evolution 
are frankly and honestly conceded. There is, of course, 
the general assumption throughout the work that every- 
body who is competent to form a judgment believes in 
evolution; yet no epithets are bandied, and no one is 
abused. All objectors are simply ignored. 

Thus we may conclude that in this book the evolution- 
ists have put forth their best effort. Everywhere there is 
evidence of technical training in physical science; yet 
there is nothing that the person who has himself devoted 
some study to the technique and principles of science 
cannot understand. The first half of the book contains a 
number of illustrations that help to elucidate the text. 

Our second word is this: The treatment of the sub- 
ject is wholly naturalistic. The origin of life, sentiency, 
personality, and mentality are all accounted for by purely 
natural processes of development. There is not a single 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK — 235 


reference to supernatural agency (unless there is an 
obscure hint on page 42).? The name of God does not 
occur in the book; there is not the remotest acknowledg- 
ment of His existence. So far as the deponents in this 
book have any witness to bear, man came to be what he 
is, body and mind, without an intelligent and purposeful 
cause. If the authors believe in a personal God, or any 
other kind of a God, they give no sign. 

It is true, Professor Lull refers to “the Mosaic account 
of creation,” which, he says, ‘would give us a very recent 
date for man’s advent on this planet.”* Then in a 
mildly derisive way, he calls attention to Dr. John Light- 
foot’s calculations regarding biblical chronology away 
back in 1654—a chronology that nobody to-day accepts. 
Is this ancient citation made at all in order to cast dis- 
credit on the biblical account and on biblical believers 
and scholars? Later, strangely enough, he adds: “One 
questions, however, not the scriptural account, but the 
exactness of the interpretation. The researches of orien- 
tal scholars are bringing more and more into existence 
the historical truth of the Old Testament narratives, and 
are establishing from other lines of evidence the historical 
character of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other Hebrew 
patriarchs; but they are also tracing back into a more 
remote period the history of the Near Eastern peo- 
ple, ...”° Here you find either ambiguity of state- 
ment, or else a direct contradiction between the first and 
the last statements cited. 

President Angell says: ‘Even in the field of religion, 
where obvious evolution has occurred since primitive 
times, the modern mind has introduced modifications of 

*“Tt may be possible to explain many of the processes of life on the 
mechanistic or physico-chemical basis, but it is difficult to explain repro- 


duction on that theory.” 
*The Evolution of Man, p. 1. Pibia Del 


236 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


the teachings of the founders of the great world religions, 
designed to adapt them more nearly to the conditions of 
contemporary life. The doctrines of Christianity, while 
based as truly as ever on the life and teachings of Jesus, 
are undergoing constant development and transforma- 
tion to accommodate them to the needs of the life and 
thought of our time.” ° 

Professor Keller refers to the parabolic teaching of 
Christ in what seems to us a rather disparaging context.? 
In his chapter on ‘Societal Evolution” he speaks about 
“mores” and religion a few times, but accounts for them 
solely by natural evolution, never once hinting at any 
theistic ground or cause. “Mores” (the Latin for morals) 
are only “customs,” and the reformer who would change 
the natural order is called “a tinkerer.” The work, there- 
fore, is throughout purely naturalistic. 

Now, in all sincerity we would ask whether Christian 
people, scientific or nonscientific, dare have nothing to 
say in respect to these speculations of the naturalists? A 
theory that assigns to man a purely natural and animal 
origin surely runs counter to the teaching of Christianity. 
Indeed, the two could not very well be more at variance. 
Moreover, the whole view of man, his nature, purpose, 
and destiny, as set forth in the Bible, is the very opposite 
of that taught by these evolutionists. We are saying 
this in order that men who promulgate such doctrines 
as scientifically established facts may not be so much 
surprised when Christian thinkers and scholars who 
enter the arena against them want to be absolutely as- 
sured that evolution has been scientifically validated 
before they give up the teaching of the Bible, which has 


brought them so rich an experience of pardon, truth and — 


salvation. 
*The Evolution of Man, p. 123. ‘"Ibid., p. 129. 


a 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK = 237 


MAn’s ANIMAL LINEAGE 


All the scientists represented in this volume assign to 
‘man an animal ancestry, and that, too, for both body and 
mind. ‘This is full-fledged evolution; not the callow or 
half-fledged kind advocated by some liberalistic preachers 
and theologians. Man is a blue-blooded descendant of an 
animal stock still farther down in the scale than the an- 
thropoid ape, the orang, the gorilla and the gibbon.8 We 
shall make good our assertion by citations. 

Professor Lull speaks of man’s “prehuman forebears,” 
and indicates that they once lived in “the trees.” Ac- 
cording to the diagram mentioned above, homo sapiens 
grew out of the same trunk as the anthropoid apes. Pro- 
fessor Ferris says: ‘Because of the structural similarities 
he [man] belongs to the order of primates, together with 
the lemurs, monkeys, and apes.” Again: “Structurally 
man differs from his nearest relatives, the anthropoid 
apes, by differences of degree rather than of kind.” 1° 

Again we are told: 


It is pretty well agreed that the anthropoid apes 
and man came from a common ancestor, and he in 
turn from some primitive broad-nosed ape. Some 
believe that the mammals were evolved from a primi- 
tive reptilian form. Others say that they came from 
the amphibians, which in turn evolved from a fish 
form, the latter from an invertebrate, and so on down 
to the protozoa. Evolution must likewise assume 
that under some favorable condition the earliest liy- 
ing forms were evolved from the inorganic world. 
Whether such a process is going on at present no one 


*Ibid. See diagram, p. 36. 
* Ibid., p. 5. * Ibid., p. 39. 


238 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


knows. However, the facts of man’s development, 
structure and variations, which have been given 
above, certainly can be best explained on the basis 
of man’s descent from lower forms; and human fos- 
sils, as far as they go, as is shown in the previous 
chapter, definitely lead back toward a form from 
which both apes and man may have descended.** 


President Angell contributes the chapter on “The Evo- 
lution of Intelligence.” On coming to this section, we 
cherished the hope of better things, but his essay moves 
along the same naturalistic lines as the others. There 
is no hint that man’s mind might have been created in 
the image of God. Indeed, no sign of any recognition 
of the divine existence is apparent. The chapter begins 
in this way: “It may be assumed without argument that 
evolution has actually occurred within the field of intelli- 
gence, as it has within the field of organic structure, and I 
shall Banas at once to examine the major features of the 
process.” And further on he declares that he does not 
intend “to postulate any fundamental difference between 
human and animal intelligence.” He evidently takes the 
side of those who deny that any “primitive intelligence” 
has directed the evolutionary process.!2. Behavior is 
“essentially a function of structure, reflexes, instincts, and 
tropisms simply represent accidental variations which 
have survived. . . . As things now stand, acts of reflex 
and instinctive character, whatever their evolutionary his- 
tory, are as such intrinsically nonintelligent, nonadaptive 
to variation in environment. This is as true of man as 
of animals.” 

To indicate still further his line of thought, in discuss- 
ing the various opinions held by scientists concerning 

* Ibid., pp. 78, 79. # Ibid., p. 107. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK 239 


consciousness in animals, he says: “One must, of course, 
admit that we have no direct access to animal conscious- 
ness, if such exists, but the same thing is true of one’s 
human neighbor.” +3 Does not this display lack of in- 
sight! Our human neighbor can tell us plainly that he is 
conscious and self-conscious, that he is aware of himself 
and of the objects and persons around him; but the ani- 
mal can do nothing of the kind. 

There is one concession which we must frankly cite: 
“Primitive man as we know him, although often carrying 
on his affairs with an extremely limited vocabulary, never- 
theless is able, through his language devices—to say noth- 
ing of others—to mark off and deal with abstract and 
general relations, and in so far he enjoys a technical 
superiority to animals which, in effect, is a difference in 
kind as well as a difference in degree.” 14 

The next few paragraphs point out in several unimpor- 
tant ways the difference between human and animal 
intelligence; but there is no reference to man’s moral and 
spiritual nature, his high hopes and aspirations, his com- 
munion with God, as marks of his superiority to animals. 
Here we also hoped to find some reference to a super- 
natural origin of man’s rational intelligence—but not a 
word; it is partly accounted for on the basis of man’s 
finer brain organization; he has “a very much more deli- 
cate internal structure in the cortex, the frontal areas 
and the so-called association areas (of the brain) are rela- 
tively very large.” Still he admits that these differences 
in the structure and size of the brain and the nervous 
system are hardly sufficient to account for the “marked 
differences” between the intelligence of man and “even 
the most highly developed animal.” 

But here he drops the matter, and gives no reason for 


* 16d De t13: *4 Tbid., p. 118. 


240 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


this “marked difference.” If evolution cannot furnish 
the adequate explanation, why not admit it frankly, and 
at least concede that some other cause must be invoked? 
He speaks of “the primeval slime out of which organic life 
has come,” +> and the context indicates that man came up 
from that “primeval slime.” Man is “in his instinctive 
life close cousin to the brutes.” ‘He has also in his 
nature the deep-grounded. tendencies of hundreds of thou- 
sands of generations of savage human ancestors.” But 
that man has an ethical and spiritual nature—of that 
outstanding and paramount fact no cognizance is taken 
in this essay. 

In the next chapter, ‘Societal Evolution,” Professor 
Keller takes the same position in regard to man’s bestial 
origin. Of evolution he says: ‘No informed person feels 
any longer the need of arguing the truth of the theory.” 7° 
Again he says: ‘My predecessors in this course of lec- 
tures have shown that the evolutionary process does not 
stop short of man as an animal.” *" Also: “Over all the 
earth he is pretty much the same sort of animal.” 1° 

The last lecture of this series, ‘“The Trend of Evolu- 
tion,” by Professor Edwin Grant Conklin, of Princeton 
University, moves on the same earthly plane of thought. 
In beginning his essay, he refers to “the Olympian gods” 
and to the “modern movie,” but that is as high as he gets. 
The God of Natural or Christian Theism receives no 
recognition. Note his basal conception of the origin of 
things: “What merely human intellect could have fore- 
seen, in those earliest protoplasmic particles, ‘the promise 
and potency of all life,’ the million species of animals and 
plants, the monsters of the deep, the giant saurians, the 
mighty beasts, and finally man?” ‘There are more inter- 


* Ibid., p. 122. ** Ibid., p. 126. 
™ Ibid., p. 131. * [bid., p. 132. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK 241 


rogations of the same grade. On the next page he implies 
that man, like all other living things, came from “the 
‘original amceba.” 1° 

Just to show how far he is from lifting “up his eyes 
unto Jehovah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth,” 
we cite here the ‘“‘causes” which he assigns for the whole 
evolutionary process from protoplasmic slime and the 
original amoeba up to man: “Unfortunately our knowl- 
edge of the causes of evolution is not very complete, but 
the majority of biologists agree that inherited variations, 
or mutations, constitute the building materials of evolu- 
tion, while natural selection, or the elimination of the 
unfit, is the workman or architect that selects or rejects 
these materials.” *° Again: “It is probably fortunate that 
men are not charged with the duty of directing future 
evolution, and we can only hope that nature, which has 
directed progressive evolution from amceba to man with- 
out human guidance, may work still greater wonders in 
future ages.” 

This essay contains a long discussion of the uncer- 
tainties in predicting the outcome of the evolutionary 
process, and concludes with the following statement as to 
the result of all scientific investigation and thought: “We 
cannot see clearly the next scene; we can scarcely imagine 
the next act, and the end of the great drama of evolution, 
if there is to be an end, is a matter of faith alone.” 2% 


CoNJECTURAL ASPECTS OF THE THEORY 


Thus far we have simply aimed to report the general 
character of the evolutionary hypothesis in the hands of 


* Ibid., p. 153. 

® Ibid., p. 154. Only a superficial mode of thinking would lead one 
to call “inherited variations” the “building material” and “natural 
selection” “the workman.” These are terms that stand for merely a 
condition, a law, a modus operandi; not an entity, cause or force. 

* Ibid., pp. 182, 184. 


242 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


its scientific exponents. We are wondering whether it 
would not be well for Christian preachers and theologians 
to walk warily before they enter into close fellowship 
with the evolutionists and become their partners in propa- 
gating this theory in the world. Here are five foremost 
naturalists who try to account for all phenomena in the 
natural and human world by the action of merely resi- 
dent and natural forces. .A previous book, issued by the 
Yale University Press and written by five Yale University 
professors, was of the same character.” Are Christians 
going to join the materialistic school? Can the theory 
of evolution be Christianized? Can it be harmonized 
with the Christian Scriptures, which must ever be the 
norm of authority for Christian people? 

However, if evolution were really proven by the find- 
ings of natural science, all of us would, we hope, be honest 
and truth-loving enough to abide by the result. But it 
would be better and wiser to wait until the theory is 
placed on an empirical basis; it will be time enough then 
to see whether it can be adjusted to Christian doctrine. 
At present we do not see how the theory can be harmon- 
ized with the teaching of the Bible, honestly interpreted 
as it reads. However, we do not feel strongly impelled 
to attempt such a reconciliation as long as evolution rests 
only on a conjectural or hypothetical basis, and especially 
as long as so many outstanding facts seem to be against it. 

In order once more to make good our assertion that the 
theory of evolution has not been empirically established, 
we shall proceed to analyze the processes of reasoning 
and induction employed in the book before us. 

We shall begin with Professor Lull’s chapter on “The 
Antiquity of Man,” the first in the book, which sets forth 


4 The Evolution of the Earth and Its Inhabitants, by Professors Bar- 
rell, Schuchert, Woodruff, Lull and Huntington, all of Yale University. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK ~— 243 


“the paleontological evidence for the evolution of man.” 
In order to prove man’s antiquity, Professor Lull refers 
“to several tablets, one of them at present in the Yale 
Babylonian Collection, which he holds to be “the oldest 
human documents thus far discovered.” We have no 
occasion to dispute his statements. These Babylonian 
tablets, says our author, antedate Christ by some five 
thousand five hundred or six thousand years. Yet they 
are evidence that men no longer made their records in 
ideographs or picture-writing, but had advanced to in- 
scriptive writing. This proves, he says, that their authors 
had “progressed far along the evolutionary pathway . . .” 

Here evolution is simply taken for granted; but it is 
the very proposition to be proved; thus here we have 
an example of the hysteron proteron. Our author thinks 
that the evolution from picture-writing to inscriptive writ- 
ing was “a centuries-long process.” But that may also 
be a non sequitur; for, if man was originally constituted 
a rational being by his Creator, the progress referred to 
would not have needed to take very long. In the course 
of human history there are many instances of rapid prog- 
ress. Especially when all the world was new, and so 
many discoveries were just at hand, advancement would 
naturally have been quite rapid. Why not look to higher 
sources for our interpretation of man instead of forever 
peering down at the poor ape? Our scientist also con- 
tends that even the protoscript (the very first writing) 
could have been invented only ‘“‘by people of considerable 
intellectual powers who had long since emerged from 
savagery ...” Here again occurs the same fallacy, that 
of taking the evolutionary theory for granted, while it 
is the very foundation of the argument. 

The writer then passes on to consider “the implements 
and weapons of vanished people, with their varying de- 


244 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


grees of refinement.” Here we have a discussion of the 
Eolithic, Paleolithic, and Neolithic periods. We are 
pleased that the author so frankly admits cases of doubt 
and of difference of opinion among the scientists. For 
example, with respect to the eoliths, the oldest of these 
implements, he states that there are scientific authorities 
who deny that they are of human workmanship, but “in- 
voke the physical forces of nature to account for their 
seeming.” But do not the scientists realize that this ditf- 
ference of opinion respecting eoliths throws doubt on the 
theory of the evolution of mankind at its very start? If 
they cannot agree whether certain implements were man- 
made or nature-made, how can they be sure that man was 
even in existence as long ago as they suppose? 

A little further on our author makes another conces- 
sion.22 We shall summarize it to save space. All through 
human history people of various degrees of cultural ad- 
vancement have been living contemporaneously in differ- 
ent parts of the earth; here they are highly civilized, 
there they are almost naked savages. For example, the 
last of the native Tasmanians died only in 1877; yet these 
people were in as low a cultural state as were the eolithic, 
or at least the paleolithic, folk. And yet some of them 
were living in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, 
contemporaneous with the advanced civilization of Eu- 
rope and America, and within the memory of many 
people now living. 

Is not that a fatal count against evolution? If there 
were paleolithic, or even eolithic, people in existence in 
Europe centuries ago, they may have lived synchronously 
with the great civilizations of Babylonia, Egypt and 
Greece, simply dwelling far off in the hinterlands, just 
as there are wild, uncouth and savage people living to-day 

* Tbid., p. 3. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK — 245 


in remote regions. Yes, right here in America, before our 

very eyes, we have proof upon proof of the rapid de- 
-terioration of people who have been removed from the 
centers of civilization. 

Now, since we have proof positive of such human de- 
terioration, and since no instance of evolution by merely 
resident forces from lower to higher civilizations can be 
cited, is it not better reasoning to conclude that the 
eolithic, paleolithic and neolithic folk were remote and 
therefore degenerate tribes living within historic times? 
Missionaries inform us that almost all the native people 
of Africa and the South Sea islands furnish clear evi- 
dence that they are the decadent offspring of races that 
were once enlightened. The grammatical structure of 
their languages, the principles of which they themselves 
do not understand and of which they are not even aware, 
proves their descent from superior races, or at least points 
to that view as the only logical induction.*4 

Attention is here called to a valuable book, the Journal 
cf the Transactions of the Victoria Institute for 1921. 
We shall quote from several scientific laymen who have 
made special researches in ethnology: ‘“Fetichism bears 
traces of truths far above and beyond itself. How did 
these find their way in? The answer is difficult on the 
evolutionary hypothesis.” 25 “Is fetichism a first step up 
or a last step down, an evolution or a degradation? ‘The 
former is contrary to experience.” ?° ‘‘Fetichism is a 
degradation from a purer faith, of which it contains 
traces, a far-off glimpse of a Supreme Creator.” ?7 “TI 
cannot believe that polytheism develops into monothe- 
ism; still less that polydemonistic tribal beliefs reach 


% See Alexander Le Roy, The Religion of the Primitives, and Maurice 
Frater, Midst Volcanic Fires. 

> Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, 1921, p. 153. 

* Ibid., p. 164. ” Ibid., p. 165. 


246 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


monotheism by the same route. History testifies to the 
contrary.” 28 “So far from civilization having been 
evolved from the savage state, the opposite is the case.” 
“‘Monotheism preceded polytheism.” 

How illogical it is, therefore, to conclude that the low- 
est types of humanity living to-day are the representatives 
of the progenitors of the human race! 

Our author may be correct in holding that Asia is the 
birthplace of mankind; but when he argues that the 
physical and climatic conditions there during the Tertiary 
era were such as to force man’s “prehuman forebears”’ 
to descend from the trees and to learn to live on the 
ground, he is again reasoning in a circle and taking for 
granted the very thing to be proved. Was man once 
an arboreal creature? ‘That is a mooted question to-day 
among evolutionists themselves, as we have previously 
shown. 

Professor Lull begins his dissertation on the fossil re- 
mains of human beings, which, he holds, furnish to the 
paleontologist the “most convincing line of evidence for 
the antiquity of man.” 2° Then he says, “these remains 
are rare,” which statement he follows by showing that 
they must» be rare from the very nature of the case. 
“One marvels,” he adds, “not that the missing links in, 
our chain of evidence are many, but rather that we pos- 
sess any chain at all.” 

This frank concession must be analyzed. ‘The miss- 
ing links in our chain of evidence are many,” then, how 
can the scientists erect a vast scientific structure on the 
mere supposition that those missing links once existed? 
It is an evasion of the real question to say, the won- 
der is “that we possess any chain at all.” If nature 


*® Tbid., p. 167. 
*® The Evolution of Man, p. 7. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK 247 


wrought all things through myriads on myriads of years 
by means of evolution, we would have a right to expect 
her to leave indubitable marks of her modus operandi, 
and furnish unmistakable evidences of the same process 
to-day. One cannot help wondering why at least a fair 
number of those myriads of intermediate forms have 
not been found. They surely ought to be in evidence 
—if they ever existed. To say that they once existed, 
but that we ought not to expect to find them now, is 
merely, once more, a begging of the question. The study 
of geology proves that there are missing links along the 
whole line of organic life; and they are always missing, 
too, at those strategic points where the evolution needs 
them most. 

The contention that man is of Wane lineage over 
against the doctrine that he was created in the divine 
image an intelligent, moral and spiritual. being, is a mat- 
ter of such grave import—involving the welfare of human- 
kind both for time and eternity as it does—that it ought 
to rest on indubitable evidence, and ought not to be 
taught and propagated unless it is supported by such 
evidence. We cannot believe that acceptance of the 
theory of a brute origin for man will make-men better 
and nobler; indeed, we fear it will have a tendency to 
debase them. For our part, our sense of responsibility 
as an instructor of youth is so keen that we long ago 
determined to teach no theory that bears vitally on the 
welfare of humankind, unless we are convinced of its 
truth by irrefragable proof. 


THE INADEQUACY OF THE DATA AS EVIDENCE 


It is both interesting and surprising to note how many 
damaging admissions honest scientists are compelled to 


248 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


make. For instance, Professor Lull says of “a scattered 
skeleton and one overlaid by absolutely undisturbed de- 
posits” (which are regarded as “good criteria of contem- 
poreity”’), that “‘chance often makes strange bedfellows.” 
Then he narrates a pertinent incident. He once found a 
glass bottle of recent manufacture “beneath the hip bone 
of an extinct horse in an apparently undisturbed Pleisto- 
cene deposit in Texas.” ‘Afterward he found that “the 
looseness of the surrounding sand betrayed a filled-in 
animal burrow into which the bottle had undoubtedly 
been thrust. Thus we see how small a circumstance may 
entirely reverse a situation. 

Anatomical distinction, though valuable as evidence, 
also has its difficulties, says our author, because modern 
types of men have been found in connection with geologi- 
cal formations of great antiquity or with long-extinct ani- 
mals. Note that statement. Scientists seem to be shiit- 
ing from their former view of “a single line of phyletic 
descent to modern man.... The belief is gaining 
ground .. . that there were several lines of descent, all 
of which may be of ancient origin, so that what have 
been called modern types of mankind might be found 
contemporaneous with, or even antecedent to, the remains 
of more primitive races.” °° 

Only a passing notice to what Professor Lull has to say 
about the various fossil human remains that have been 
unearthed can be given here. Although we have read 
the whole presentation carefully and conscientiously, we 
remain unconvinced; and for two reasons: 1. The uncer- 
tainty connected with many of these finds and the paucity 
of the remains make a sandy foundation.*t 2. Another 


*” Ibid., p. 9. 

"To cite just one familiar example: the remains of the Trinil Man 
(Pithecanthropus Erectus) include only a skull-cap, three teeth, and a 
left femur, the last in an injured or diseased condition. Says the author: 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK ~— 249 


explanation of the facts which is just as reasonable is that 
all inferior types of humankind are the result of sin and 
degeneration. This last view becomes all the more patent 
when we remember that we see enacted every day right 
before our eyes the tragedy of human degeneration; 
whereas we see no decisive evidence of inferior plants, 
animals and men evolving, by means of resident forces, 
into higher types. Every case of improvement comes 
about because some outside force of a higher character 
has been injected. 

In his chapter on “The Natural History of Man,” Pro- 
fessor Ferris makes a good deal of the recapitulation 
theory.?? Like his colleagues, he can see nothing but 
resemblances to animals in the prenatal development of 
the human child. He evidently has overlooked what Col- 
grave and Short (two eminent British scholars) have to 
say on this point in their recently issued book, The His- 
toric Faith in the Light of To-day.** 

But we shall do more than merely quote authorities. 
The resemblances between the embryo of the child and 
the animals are only superficial; the germ-plasm of the 
child is a human one from the start, and never develops 
into anything but a human being. This proves that it 
is essentially and generically unique. There are also a 
number of missing links in the process of development, 


“These probably pertain to a single individual, although they were found 
scattered through some twenty yards of space, and were not discovered 
at the same time.” The fact is, the femur was found nearly a year 
after the cranium. From such meager and uncertain data learned men 
reconstruct a head that is half human and half simian, call it a missing 
link, and then label the process science! To our mind, such faith seems 
like credulity. At all events, it is naive faith, not rational faith. 

"The Evolution of Man, p. 62. 

*® The footnote references to scientific authorities cited by these writers 
are as follows: Kellogg, Darwinism To-day, pp. 18, 21; Professor Sedge- 
wick, Darwin and Modern Science (Darwin Centenary Volume), p. 174; 
Article, “Embryology,” Encyclopedia Britannica. 


250 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


which, like other missing links, must be supplied by the 
imagination of the scientist. One scientist says that “the 
entire half of the fetes of evolution is not even hinted 
at in the epitome.” Moreover, the embryos of worms 
and other articulates lie doubled backward around the 
yolk; while all embryos of the vertebrates are doubled 
the other way from the beginning. If evolution is true, 
why does not the human embryo begin its development 
as do the worms? 

But even if the human embryo did repeat all the steps 
in the cosmical process from the amceba to man, it would 
not necessarily prove man’s descent from lower forms of 
life. It would simply prove that man is in many respects 
like them, because he was made by the same Creator. 


ANp Wuat AsBout PRECIPITIN BLoop TESTS? 


In regard to the “blood relationship” existing between 
man and the anthropoid apes,** because of the suscepti- 
bility of apes to human diseases and their reaction to 
various blood tests, we would again refer the reader to 
Colgrave and Short: “Great capital has recently been 
made of the fact that the precipitin test shows no differ- 
ence between the blood of an ape and that of a man, 
which is held to prove that they are chemically identical. 
But newer tests (agglutinins) have since been made use 
of, and it is safe to say that no surgeon, in the light of 
our present-day knowledge, would be so foolhardy as to 
transfuse any large quantity of an ape’s blood into a 
man.” 35 

Anent this important question of blood-reaction tests, 
a few additional remarks are added here. A good many 


* The Evolution of Man, p. 78. 
* The Historic Faith in the ‘Light of To-day, pp. 14, 15. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK 251 


fine experiments have been made by various scientists, 
especially Friedenthal, Ulhenhuth and Nuttall, and some 
advocates of evolution are very certain and enthusiastic 
about the results. One recent champion, Dr. Michael F. 
Guyer, Professor of Zoology in the University of Wiscon- 
sin, refers to Professor Nuttall’s investigations of “some 
twenty years ago” as having “demonstrated that by 
the precipitin test a scale of actual blood relationships 
among animals can be established.” °® This scientist evi- 
dently has not read some of the recent analyses of Nut- 
tall’s finds of “some twenty years ago.” 

To all interested parties, we desire to recommend Dr. 
Harold C. Morton’s recent work, The Bankruptcy of 
Evolution, in the appendix to which he offers an acute 
critique on the subject of blood precipitin tests. He 
shows that Nuttall was very modest in his claims, saying 
that his experiments constituted only “a preliminary in- 
vestigation which will have to be continued along special 
lines by many workers in the future.” Thus Nuttall had 
no disposition to pronounce a dogmatic judgment on the 
results of his discoveries. 

Dr. Morton’s analysis of Nuttall’s report is quite tech- 
nical. He shows again and again that the testimony is 
dubious, and that to draw conclusions from it in favor 
of evolution is to be guilty of the logical fallacy of over- 
broad generalization. We can call attention to only a few 
salient facts. One set of tests included the following 
animals: Forty-nine reptiles, fourteen amphibians, nine- 
teen fishes, seven crustaceans, one duckbill (a very low 
Australian mammal) and two lemurs (the last animals 
belonging to the ape tribe). ‘Yet,’ says Dr. Morton, 
‘all these were alike in giving no reaction at all! The 
lemur should certainly have revealed its difference from 


%See The Scientific Monthly, Aug., 1925. 


252 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


the crab.” Would the evolutionists claim that the rep- 
tiles, amphibians and crustaceans (crabs) are as near 
relatives to man as are the lemurs, which belong to the 
simian race? 

Tests that were made with other animals gave some — 
reaction, generally very slight. This would prove that 
all of those animals bear a closer kinship to man than 
does our little ape, the lemur, which gave no reaction 
whatever. The foregoing were qualitative tests. Pro- 
fessor Nuttall also made quantitative tests, the results 
of which were peculiar. For instance, in two tests the 
anthropoid orang-outang (man’s supposititious nearest 
relative) gave a precipitate of forty-seven and eighty per 
cent. Why this large difference? The same tests gave a 
short-tailed Old World monkey (macacus rhesus) a re- 
action of seventy-two and ninety per cent. This would 
indicate that the said monkey is a closer relative to man 
than the anthropoid ape, which contradicts the current 
view among evolutionists. And, besides, as Dr. Morton 
says, “The quantitative and qualitative tests disagree.” 

In one of the tests the anthropoids (the chimpanzee 
and the gorilla) and the horse gave the same result, 
namely, twelve thousandths per cent; while “man, the 
civet cat and the little Madagascan mammal called the 
tenrec all gave eleven thousandths per cent.” This odd 
result would prove the civet cat and the tenrec to be 
nearer relatives to man than are the anthropoids! Even 
Professor W. B. Scott, says Dr. Morton, has to make the 
following admission: ‘It could hardly be maintained that 
an ostrich and a parrot are more nearly allied than a 
wolf and a hyena; and yet that would be the inference 
from the blood-tests.” | 

Another expert critic of the blood-test argument has. 
given us the benefit of his technical scientific knowledge. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK 253 


We refer to Arthur I. Brown, M.D.,37 Vancouver, British 
Columbia. He is a physician, not a minister or a theo- 
logian. In an elaborate article this scholar subjects these 
blood-test reactions to a keen and critical analysis.°® His 
technical training enables him to go into the chemistry of 
the precipitin tests. He shows that the blood must first 
be converted into serum before it can be used in these 
experiments. By this process most of the original chem- 
ical constituents are removed from the blood, while the 
vital principle or force, which is the very crux of the mat- 
ter, is thereby destroyed. Subjecting Nuttall’s six tables 
to close scrutiny, Dr. Brown says: 


Table C reveals the fact that Old World monkeys 
and New World monkeys are 42 points separated, 
while in Table D an impassable gulf of 64 degrees 
yawns between them. Table A permits marmosets 
and Old World monkeys to come as close together as 
42 points, but Table D increases the distance to 64 
points. In table E anti-sheep serum was used on 
horses and other animals. According to one test, 
horses and sheep are 84 degrees removed. In this 
same table where anti-pig serum was used against 
horses and sheep, the two latter animals are close 
brothers, only three points apart. 


: 

Again, our author shows that, in one of Nuttall’s tables, 
man and the anthropoids are eight points removed, while 
in another table they are thirty-five degrees distant, a 
difference of twenty-seven degrees; and, passing strange, 
a third table marks them as practically identical. ‘Noth- 

7 Dr. Brown’s academic titles are as follows: M.D., C.M., F.R.CS.E., 
the last standing for Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of 


Edinburgh. 
In The Bible Champion, Nov., 1925. 


254 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


ing can be proved by such divergences,” says Dr. Brown. 
So the much-lauded blood precipitin tests are not suffi- 
ciently reliable to add anything to the argument for 
evolution. 

Dr. Brown brings forward this telling fact: 


Compare ass’s milk and human milk. By adopt- 
ing evolutionary logic, we should come to some 
ridiculous conclusions. Quantitative chemical analy- 
sis reveals the fact that, of all mammals, the ass is 
closest to man in this respect—the similarity of their 
milk. We would hardly dare to assert that man must 
class himself with this long-eared fraternity, nor that, 
because the horse’s milk is nearest in composition 
to that of the ass, we should adopt the following 
genetic order from above downward, viz., man, ass, 
horse, cow. For our part, we do not see why the 
milk test should not be as valid and determinative 
as the blood test. 

Between animals and men there are many resem- 
blances [says Dr. Brown] but there are more Con- 
trasts, and the contrasts are the more striking. As 
similarity in bodily structure does not prove blood 
relationship, neither can dissimilarity necessarily be 
used as disproof of such relationship. It is his men- 
tal and spiritual qualities that separate man by an 
impassable gulf from all lower animals. This is the 
real test of heredity, and if two individuals have 
nothing in common in these realms, no one can rea- 
sonably affirm that they descend from a common 
ancestor. 


A CRITIQUE ON A RECENT WORK 255 


CoNCLUDING REFLECTIONS 


_In concluding our thesis, it remains to be said, frankly, 
that our reading of many books and articles by the advo- 
cates of evolution, and our no less careful endeavor to 
weigh judicially the facts and arguments adduced by 
them, have convinced us more firmly than ever that the 
theory lacks scientific verification, and is based on mis- 
taken inductions, while, at the same time, many outstand- 
ing natural and other data are positively arrayed against 
it. No one needs, therefore, to be in haste to cast over- 
board the teaching of the Sacred Scriptures relative to 
the origin of the universe, of life and species, and of the 
human family. Since the problem of origins is so hap- 
pily solved in the Bible, it follows logically that the same 
marvelous Book furnishes the solution of the further 
problems—which also are paramount—of the purpose 
of man’s creation and the ultimate destiny predetermined 
and prepared for him by his gracious Maker, Preserver 
and Redeemer. At the same time, if our interpretations 
and inductions are correct, full-toned evangelical Chris- 
tianity and the verified results of science may and do 
dwell together in the most amicable accord. 





BIBLIOGRAPHY 


In the preceding pages many works both for and 
against special creation, and likewise for and against evo- 
lution, have been cited. The author does not believe that 
the works of pro-evolutionists can justly be said to have 
been slighted. A brief list of recent works on the side of 
special creations 1 and opposed to evolution is here ap- 
pended. The list might be greatly enlarged, but it is 
thought best to name only those works that are of a 
specifically scientific character, written by authors who 
are professional scientists, or by theologians who have 
gone deeply into the scientific phases of the questions 
at issue. 


CoLcRAVE, B., and SHort, A. R., The Historic Faith in 
the Light of To-Day. 

LE Roy, A., The Religion of the Primitives. 

Farruurst, A., Organic Evolution Considered; Theistic 
Evolution; Atheism in our Universities. 

Price, G. M., The Fundamentals of Geology; The New 
Geology: A Text-Book for Colleges and Training 
Schools; The Phantom of Organic Evolution. 

Morton, H. C., The Bankruptcy of Evolution. 

ZERBE, A. S., Christianity and False Evolutionism. 

Morg, L. T., The Dogma of Evolution. 

O’Tootez, G. B., The Case Against Evolution. 

This is perhaps the most technically scientific 
work against evolution that has thus far appeared 
in the English language. 

257 


258 THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


SPENGLER, O., The Decline of Western Civilization. 
This work has just been translated into English. 
FLEISCHMANN, A. (in collaboration with Gruetzmacher), 
The Idea of Evolution in Connection with Present-day 
Physical and Social Science. 


1 One of these works, that of L. T. More, can hardly be said to uphold 
the doctrine of special creations in a positive way. 





ADDENDUM 


The reader will, we believe, appreciate our calling his 
attention to the following list of capable works which 
uphold, in a positive way, the biblical world-view, and 
set forth its profound rationality. In many places they 
discuss the problem of creation and evolution. Some of 
them, published a number of years ago, have come to 
be regarded as standard works, not to say classics, in 
their line, while others, no less persuasive, are quite recent. 


Orr, J., The Christian View of God and the World; God’s 
Image in Man; The Problem of the Old Testament. 

Wricut, G. F., Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament 
History; The Origin and Antiquity of Man. 

FarrBarrn, A. M., The Philosophy of the Christian 
Religion. 

Bavinck, H., The Philosophy of Revelation. 

EprarpD, J. H. A., Christian Apologetics: The Scientific 
Vindication of Christianity. 

Jounson, W. H., The Christian Faith Under Modern 
Searchlights. 

Mutuins, E. Y., Why is Christianity True? ; Christianity 
at the Cross Roads. 

Ormonn, A. T., The Philosophy of Religion. 

Tuomas, M. B., The Biblical Idea of God. 

Taytor, C. C., The Purpose of God (As seen in the Old 
Testament). 

Finn, A. H., The Creation, Fall and Deluge. 

Reep, L. A., Astronomy and the Bible. 

259 





INDEX 


Abiogenesis, 164 (see generation, 
spontaneous). 

Acquired characteristics, 207. 

Adam, 68, 70, 79, 95, 97- 

Akeley, C. G., 208, 209. 

American Museum of Natural His- 

tory, 117, 119, 185, 205. 

American principle, the, 142, 144. 

Ameeba, the, 18, 88, 164, 171. 

Ancestors, man’s, their fossils lack- 
ie as, 213. 

Animal ancestry, man’s, taught by 
evolution, 17, 18, 106, 107, I2I- 
123, 154, 160, 204, 205, 212, 229, 
237-242, 247. 

Animals, created to be animals 
only, 182. 

Anthropoids, 148, 204, 237, 250. 

Apes, monkeys, etc., 67, 101, I17, 
Tio. 191-123;. 126ff, | 204, 205, 
212; non progressive, 126-128, 
135, 150-153; differ from men, 
217-222; man’s supposed near 
relatives, 237ff. 

Aphar (dust), 85, 86, 159. 

Appraisal of man, the Biblical, 108- 
116, 

Aristotle, 24, 26, 31, 201, 202. 

Asah (to make), 61, 78, 79. 


Bara (to create), 24, 26, 61, 77-79, 
82, 83. 

Barrell, J., 203. 

Barton, G. A., 54, 83. 

Bateson, W., 166-168, 204. 

Bible, the, 19, 55, etc.; and geol- 
ogy, 50-57; and origins, 20-39; 
not a textbook of science, 40, 80, 
81; explains sin, 45-50; a good 
book, 59-61; a guide book, 68; 
inspired, 68, 96, etc.; interpreta- 
tion of, 138, 139 (see exegesis). 


Bible Champion, The, 3, 253. 

Bibliography, 25-250. 

Biogenesis, 60, 61, 163. 

Biology, 60, 97, 98, 164-168, 177, 
2095227, 24k) 
Birds, 67, 171-173, 178, 179, 180; 
supposed evolution of, 172. 
Blight, sin’s, on man and nature, 
44-49. 

Blood tests, 250-254. 

Body, man’s, fashioned, 82-90; of 
clean soil, 158-160. 

Brain, 107, 176, 177; how evolved, 
222-224. 

Braye, Tycho, 202. 

Brewer, J. M., 168. 

Brown, A. I., 253, 254. 

Bruno, Giordano, 141. 

Bryan, W. J., 15, 182, 183, 233. 

Bullinger, 227, 228. 

Burbank, L., 147, 183, 184. 


Catastrophism, 53, 54, 214. 

Causality, law of, 73, 76, 77. 

Cause, adequate, 29-39, 63, 64, 74, 
77,97, 98, 174, 240. é 

Causes of evolution not required, 
138. 

Cave men, 55. 

Cells, 18, 95, 164, 174, 175, 227. 

Changing views, of evolutionists, 
211-216; of theologians, 201, 203. 

Christ, and Genesis, 96; His esti- 
mate of man, 114, 115 (see re- 
demption and restoration). 

Christianity and science, in accord, 
3, 19, 57, 75, 255- 

Christians earnest, 144, 145. 

Civilization and paganism contem- 
poraneous, 244, 245. 

Colgrave and Short (their treat- 
ise), 156, 160, 249, 250, 257. 


261 


262 


Conklin, E. G., 67, 204, 232, 254; 
his brochure reviewed, 136-162. 

Conn, H. W., 169, 170. 

Copernicus, 26, 200, 201. 

Cosmogony, the Biblical, 60, 61, 81, 
102, 240; pagan, 83. 

Coulter, J. M. and M. C., 232. 

Creatio ex nihilo, 14, 15, 24, 27, 
30, 64, 65, 72, 78, 83, 98. 

Creation, 13; defined and ex- 
plained, 14, 15, 16, 18; of the 
universe, 20-39; good, 40-57, 85, 
108, 159, 184; order of, 60; fin- 
ished, 65, 66; and redemption, 
69-72; mode unknown, 72, 159, 
160; or evolution, 73-75; of 
man’s soul, 84, 85. 

Creative evolution, 
tion, 14, I5. 

Cro-Magnon men, 
T60,\ 210, 92125 
lichkeit, 134, 1353 
176, 177. 


a contradic- 


the, 131-134, 
their Schreck- 
intelligence, 


Darwin and Darwinism, 18, 136, 
147, 166, 169, 180, 203, 204, 211, 


212, 249. 

Dawn Man, the real, 75-98; of 
evolution, 117-135; compared, 
#32. 


Deism, English, 35. 

Deluge, the Noachian, 54. 

Descent, several lines for man, 248. 

Destiny, of man and the cosmos, 
21, 72, 97, 99, 109, 114-110, 199; 
200, 255. 

Deterioration, 54, 55, 213-215, 249. 

Development, 16, 28, 34. 

Differentia and science, 178. 

Dinosaurs, 175, 214. 

Distinctions, importance of, 139; 
blurred by evolutionists, 177; 
178, 

Divine revelation needed, 60, 96. 

Dubois, E., 176. 

Dust, finest material, 85, 86, 158, 
159. 


Economy, the Biblical, 182. 
Eden, 43, 48, 70, 82, 103, 110 (Par- 
adise), 159, 179. 


INDEX 


Edwards, D. M., 31. 

Eisegesis, 86. 

Electrons, 74, 203. 

Empirical method, 23, 62, 63, 68, 
97, 100, 128, 150, 164. 

Encyclopedia Britannica, 16, 249. 

Eohippus, 186-192; his descend- 
ants, IgI. 

Ether, the universal, 28, 35, 203, 


204. 

Ethics and evolution, 170, 171, 247. 

Evolution, 13, 25; scientific sense, 
14, 15; defined, 16, 17, 18; in- 
adequate, 73-75, 165, 166, 167; 
theistic, 34, 35; to roll out, 64; 
Evolution and the Bible (Conk- 
lin’s work), 136-162; uprising 
against, 136-138; causes of, 138; 
and legislation, I41, 142; an 
esoteric cult, 144; not hard to 
understand, 145; the religion of, 
161, 162; pertinent points on, 
163-200; its limits, 168, 169; and 
ethics, 170, 171; if now opera- 
tive, 181, 182; and devolution, 
188, 209; its tedium, 192, 193; 
its doleful outlook, 196-199. 

Evolution of the Earth and its In- 
habitants, The (reviewed), 163- 
168, 203, 242. 

Evolution of Man, The (reviewed), 
233-254. 

Evolutionists classified, 17. 

Ex nihilo nihil fit, 147, 168, 169. 


Facts, not disputed, but wanted, 
18, 19, 107, III, 138. 

Faith and evolution, 168, 241. 

Fallacies, logical, 136, 139, 154, 156, 
159, 162, 171, 187, 243. 

Fatal admissions, 163-171. 

Fenton, C. L., 197, 198. 

Fixism, 74, 146, 147, 178, 179 (see _ 
stability of type). 

Fossils, their confused arrange- 
ment, 50-57; meager (of man), 
12%, 126; unwarranted infer- 
ences from, 133-135; of mon- 
keys and apes, 150, I5I. 

Free, E. E., 45, 66, 109. 


INDEX 


Galileo, 26, 202. 

Garden, a, man’s first habitat, 43, 
44, 86, 90, OI, 122. 

Genealogical tree, 148-150. 

Generatlon, spontaneous, 61, 66, 
97, 98, 126, 163, 164, 165. 

Geology and the Bible, 50-57, 61; 
order of strata, 51-55. 

Germ-plasms, 61, 74, 149, 159, 174, 
207, 249. 

Germ, the vital, 173, 174. 

Gladstone, 137. 

Glands, 127, 135. 

Gnostics, 26, 31. 

God, the Creator, 15, 20-39 (many 
other references); eternal, 24, 
27-29, 32; Governor, 25, 37-39; 
not finite, 32, 33; not absent, 55; 
the unifier, 36, 37; His personal- 
ity and egoity, 37, 38, 103, 104; 
the adequate cause, 63, 64, 77, 
98; a Spirit, 84, 102. 

Growth not evolution, 16. 

Gregory, W. K., 66, 109, 117-135, 
205-207, 208, 210. 

Guyer, M. T., 251. 


Habitat, man’s first, 43, 44, 79, 86, 
208, 210. 

Hair, absence of on human body, 
196. 

Harper’s Magazine, 140. 

Hebrew nouns (for forest or 
jungle), 43; verbs (for growth 
or development), 78-80, 87, 


95. 
Heidelberg man, 131, 134, 210. 
Henry, Matthew, 95. 
Hierarchy, the new, 144. 
Homologies, 106, 107, 
217-222, 254. 
Horse, the, its supposed evolution, 
185-192. 
Howison, G. H., 168, 169. 
Hrdlica, Ales, 130. 
Humanoid folk, their status, 132, 
133. 
Hutchinson, H., 153. 
Huxley, T., 18, 136, 170, 185. 
Hyracotherium, 186, 188. 


154, 155) 


263 


Ignorance, 13, 14. 

Image, the divine in man, 99-116; 
proofs of, 100-102; its elements, 
102-106. 

Infidels, who makes them, 142, 143. 


James, W., 32. 

Journal of Victoria Institute, 245. 

Judgment, the right of, 143-146, 
231-233. 


Kammerer, P., 207. 

Keen, W. W., 204, 208, 232. 

Keil, 40-42, 94-96, 159. 

Keith, A., 131. 

Keller, A. G., 16. 

Kellogg, V., 156, 165, 168, 187- 
189, 249. 

Kindly feeling, a, 13. 

Knowledge, its limits, 14. 


Lancaster, Ray, 130, 131. 

Lane, H. H., 205-209, 232, 233. 

Laplace, 141. 

La Rue, D. W., 222. 

Le Conte, J., 17, 226. 

Legislation, 141, 142. 

Le Roy, A., 218, 229, 245, 257. 

Leuba, J. H., 20. 

Life, its genesis, 21, 58-75. 

London, Jack, 124. 

Lull, Ferris, Parker, Angell, Keller, 
Conklin (their work reviewed), 
234-254. 

Lyell, Charles, 53, 202. 


Man, origin of, 21, 72, 76-98; in 
divine image, 40, 47, 64, 69, 79, 
72, 77, 79, 84, 99-116, 222, 230, 
247; created, 77-98, 154, 160, 
222; his fall, 45-48, 172; a dis- 
tinct genus, 68, 79, 90, 91; 4 
dual being, 102; a moral agent, 
193; made to fit his environ- 
ment, 89, 90; his value, 99, 108- 
116; his destiny (see destiny) ; 
progressive, 153, 154, 229, 243; 
not bestial, 208, 209. 

Manicheans, 26, 31. 

Marquis wheat, 183, 184. 

Martyrs, 141. 


264 


Materialistic world-view, 29-32. 

Matter, not eternal, 31, 32, 73. 

Matthews and Chubb (work re- 
viewed), 185-1092. 

McCabe, J., 123, 145, 208. 

McClure’s Magazine, 117, 205, 208, 
211. 

McCreary, G. B., 33. 

McGregor, J. i, 176. 

Mechanistic view, 22. 

Men and monkeys, how each dif- 
fer, 217-222. 

Mendel, G., 147. 

Mill, Te ial 3 2) 

Miller, G. S., 130. 

Miller, J. K., 194-196. 

Miracles, 35, 73, 74, 207, 208; of 
evolution, 171. 

Missing links, 156, 176, 246, 249, 


250. 
Modern Mind, the, 35. 
Modus operandi, 63, 80, 93, 247. 
Moffatt, J., 25, 2 
Monkey and ass, 147. 
Moneron, 225. 
More, L. T., 141, 216, 257. 
Morton, H. C., 251, 252, 257. 
Mud, man not made of, 85, 158, 


159. 
Mule, the useful, 179. 


Neanderthal man, 
210, 212. 

Nebular hypothesis, 202, 203. 

Nephesh (soul), 89. 

Nuttall’s blood tests analyzed, 251- 
254. 


I3I-134, 160, 


Origin (see man, life, species, uni- 
verse). 

Original righteousness, 104. 

Origins, the problem of, 20-23; by 
creation, 61-63, 59-75; not by 
evolution, 59-61, 166, 167. 

Ormond, A. T., 23, 257. 

Orns \ Ji, 100,257: 

Osborn, H. F., 15, 55, 66, 109, 117- 
135, 176, 177, 204, 208-210, 214, 
232, 233. 

Osburn, R. C., 199, 231, 232. 

O’Toole, G. B., 229, 257. 


INDEX 


Pantheism, 39. 

Parents and children, 97, 98, 174. 

Pasteur, 165. 

Persecution, 140, I4I. 

Philosophy, 13, 25, 26, 27, 29, 36, 
37, 63, 75, 98. 

Piltdown man, the, 128-131, 212. 

Pithecanthropus erectus (the Trinil 
or Java man), 131, 134, 160, 
176; 210, 212, 248, 249. 

Planetesimal hypothesis, the, 203. 

Plato, 24, 26, 31, 75. 

Pliancy (plasticity) of species, 146, 
I47, 179-181. 

Popular Science Monthly, The, 117, 
211. 

Pragmatism, 33. 

Pre-apes and Sub-monkeys, 108, 
T23,0053) 

Primates, the, 121, 205, 211. 

Price, G. M., 54, 226, 257. 

Pringle-Pattison, A. S., 33. 

Procreation after kind, 61, 66, 74. 

Progress, 15, 16; man’s, 205-207. 

Protoplasm, 88, 165, 171, 241. 

Psychologists, 108. 

Ptolemaic theory, 26, 145, 201, 202. 


Quality and quantity, 111-114. 


Recapitulation theory, the, 154- 
156, 249, 250. 

Redemption, 26, 55, 65, 68; and 
creation, 68-72; and the divine 
image, 100. 

Religion of evolution, the, 81, 82, 
I6I, 162. 

Responsibility, the teacher’s, 247. 

Restoration of man and nature, 
48-50, 104, 109, 184, 185, 199, 
200. 

Reversion, 67, 146, 147. 

Ridicule, 13, 141. 

Romanes, 155. 


Saunders, C. E., 183, 184. 

Salvation (see redemption), 22. 

Schwalbe, G., 130. 

Schweitzer, A., 81. 

Science, physical, 13, 55; its limits, 
58, 59; defined, 74, 186; chang- 
ing views, 145, 146, 201-216. 


INDEX 


Sciences, the, their sisterhood, 233. 
Scientific Monthly, The, 251. 
Security, the believer’s, 37-39. 
Serpent, the, in Eden, 46, 47. 
Sheldon, H. C., 33. 

Simpson, J. Y., 206, 207. 

Sin, its origin, 22; its effects, 159 
(see the Fall). 

Sommer, D. A., 225. 

Soul (man’s), created, 84, 85, 103; 
and body, 88-90, 102, 103; its 
essence, 103. 

Species, origin of, 58-75; transmu- 
tation of, 66, 74, 98, 126, 166- 
168, 177, 213, 226; after its 
kind, 61, 66, 74 (see also under 
transmutation); definition of, 
177-182, 

Speculation, 19, 120, 137. 

Spencer, Herbert, 18, 110, 136, 169, 
207. 

Spiritual discernment, 64, 65. 

Sports, 211, 212. 

Stability of type (also fixism), 74, 
126, 177-184, 225-230. 

Struggle for existence, the, 41, 66, 
Sameaass ¢iAlyL70, 272; 210, 
41%, 214, 

Sun, The New York, 153. 

Survival of the fittest, 66, 132, 133, 
I40, I4I, 170, 214, 225. 

Sweet, L. M., 16. 


Tedium, the, of evolution, 192, 
193. 

Teleology, 37, 173. 

Theologians, lovers of Science, 139, 
159, 160; their rights and spe- 
cialty, 201, 231-233. 

Theology, a science, 68, 185. 


265 


Thinking on higher levels, 106-108. 

Thomas, M. B., 28, 35, 257. 

Thomson, J. A., 15, 145, 172, 173; 
210, 211; 232. 


Transformism, 17, 148-150, 214, 
217, 225-230. 
Transmutation of species (see 


species). 
Tree folk, 123, 124, 206. 
Tree, the forbidden, 43, 46, 79. 
Trinity, the, 103. 
Tyndall, J., 18, 27, 165. 


Universe, the, whence it came, 20- 
39; its vastness, 110-113; why so 
vast, I15, 116. 

Unwin, E. E., 232. 

Uprising against evolution, the, 
136-138. 


Van Loon, H., 88, 145, 155, 192, 
232. 

Variations, 180, 181, 241. 

Vermiform appendix, the, 194-196. 

Vestiges, 194-196. 

Vines, Professor, 16, 17. 


Wace, H., 137. 

Weir, 117ff. 

Wells, H. G., 32, 45, 232. 

Wilson, E. B., 163-165, 168. 

Woman, 68, 72, 78, 79, 91-96. 

World, the, created good, 41-57; 
its lapse and restoration, 48-51, 
I04, 109, 184, 185, 199, 200. 

World, The New York, 161, 182. 

World-view, 13, 23, 28, 64, 65, 233. 


Yatsar (to fashion), 26, 82, 87. 


ay > 
Li 


q 
: 








v 
‘ 
, 
: 
ya 
: 
‘ 
a 
s 
-“ 
} 
: 
: 
/ 
‘- 
J 
‘ 
‘ 
: 
] 
: 
r 
y 
4 
’ 
' 
- : 
’ 
M4 s 
» 
74! \ 
4 4 
ie $ 
' > j 
¢ { 
, } 
Si 
- 
| é 
wry sf ie , ‘ 
Fi 
ys Si Aer 
’ “ ac ve 
a Fi ie & 
Bape) aed, 
et oo. 


: | os 
rn fe 4 “ Lee | mit, fre fly 


eh ‘ 
‘ 
s 
UT 
nm a 
3 A 
bd he tine 
‘ 
r 
' 
ie 
ay 
‘ 
-) 
t 
> 
, 
) 
; 
be 
=F 
4 
f 
‘ 7 
i 
, 
id ul b 
’ ‘ 
‘ 
; 
. ‘y f 
‘ re 7 
, ‘ 
Z ‘ 
~ } gt iy 7 
AL ee rt Lin 
dud: oe ae ae , “ 
i 
» 5 ‘3% oS ts 
abit Ce ating 
Pani ‘ ; ' vit ‘ 


tL? ele 
wf i 


t , 4 «#, 
» bor ate ui 





5 
yee 
s)he 
‘ ‘ oi 
mY 
4 














—™ <5 <mte Te *. Pts 


Lc ann, Py ase 
as cg eae 


pees 





Date Due 























—SE-9 4+ 






































we ae 
= bs ama 
te 


ae 


an! 


es 





Seminary-Speer L 


¢ 


Theo 























Hit 
HAY 































































































